You gotta turn on C-Span...

[ELVIS]

Algore's saying the results of Man-made Global Warming is "the biggest crisis we're ever going to face." That it will dwarf the credit explosion...

At least many senators and congressmen are saying they will NOT support a carbon tax...

LMAO!


:lmao::elvis:

[ELVIS]

Rep. Steve Scalise said some of algore's responses are "cutesy anecdotes."

Algore turned red in the face (with his white hair) and said "MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A CUTESY ANECDOTE!"

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/10/al_gore.jpg


:elvis:

[Nitro Express]

Most of the short-term global warming was due to higher than normal solar storms. Now the sun has gone back to normal and so is the whether. I mean around 1996 the solar storms were so bad ham radio operators couldn't transmit due to the interferance.

[Blaze]

about all you can say, one way or the other is..................
We'll see. Could be a good ting could be a bad thing...

I would like to see the polars melt, there is some place I cannot get to that I would like to see.

[FORD]

http://weehaggis.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lastpolarbear.jpg
:(

[LoungeMachine]

Rep. Steve Scalise said

Um, who?

:gulp:

[Guitar Shark]

http://weehaggis.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lastpolarbear.jpg
:(

Is he humping a giant ice penis?

[FORD]

Is he humping a giant ice penis?

Maybe..... but I don't think the bear's sexual orientation is the primary issue here. The fact that he may have had to swim 60 miles to find that "ice penis" is.

[thome]

His pool filter is like 4 years out of date.


Gotta pay rent somehow..?

Were the tickets on Ticket Master..?

I'M GOING PLATNUM!!YouTube - Kid Rock - rock and roll jesus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Vi8Z6vyQw)

[ELVIS]

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

April 23, 2009 (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing)

'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/Assets/Images/GroupAd.gif
Lord Christopher Monckton - bottom right...


Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said “absolutely not” to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee “pushed at multiple levels” to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats “refused,” according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )

A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

April 23, 2009 (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing)

'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/Assets/Images/GroupAd.gif
Lord Christopher Monckton - bottom right...


Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said “absolutely not” to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee “pushed at multiple levels” to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats “refused,” according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )

A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

Apocalypse? No! - Why there is no Global Warming Crisis

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7W-BePJOLbw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7W-BePJOLbw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>


:elvis:

[Seshmeister]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nK09cyL8Ihw/SMlht02tozI/AAAAAAAAAcA/1ZME3BRJAzI/s400/ostrich.jpg

[ELVIS]

Um, who?

:gulp:

Steve Scalise is a Louisiana Congressman...with an "R" in his title...

This guy...OKAY ??

http://photos.upi.com/topics-Steve-Scalise/2bac9cb3e308ec8dda429a121fdfda6a/Steve-Scalise_1.jpg

No dude, I was just posting a few bits as I watched algore almost blow his top...:D

But Christopher Monckton would have tore gore apart...:biggrin:


:elvis:

[mwsully]

Human Fingerprints

Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html)


Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.

Because most global warming emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, the energy choices we make today greatly influence the climate our children and grandchildren inherit. We have the technology to increase energy efficiency, significantly reduce these emissions from our energy and land use, and secure a high quality of life for future generations. We must act now to reduce dangerous consequences.

In its 2001 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." [3] Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and land clearing has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up the surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. [4,5,6]

Background: Driving the Climate ("Forcing")

Climate is influenced by many factors, both natural and human. [7] Things that increase temperature, such as increases in heat-trapping emissions from cars and power plants or an increase in the amount of radiation the sun emits, are examples of "positive" forcings or drivers. Volcanic events and some types of human-made pollution, both of which inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the atmosphere, lower temperature and are examples of "negative" forcings or drivers. Natural climate drivers include the sun's energy output, aerosols from volcanic activity, and changes in snow and ice cover. Human climate drivers include heat-trapping emissions from cars and power plants, aerosols from pollution, and soot particles.

Much as the Air Force develops computer programs to simulate aircraft flight under different conditions, climate scientists develop computer programs to simulate global climate changes under different conditions. These programs use our knowledge of physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur within Earth's atmosphere and oceans and on its land surfaces. Mathematical models allow scientists to simulate the behavior of complex systems such as climate and explore how these systems respond to natural and human factors.

Fingerprint 1: The Ocean Layers Warm

The world's oceans have absorbed about 20 times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century, leading to higher temperatures not only in surface waters but also in water 1,500 feet below the surface. [8,9] The measured increases in water temperature lie well outside the bounds of natural climate variation.

Fingerprint 2: The Atmosphere Shifts

Recent research shows that human activities have lifted the boundary of Earth's lower atmosphere. Known as the troposphere (from the Greek tropos, which means "turning"), this lowest layer of the atmosphere contains Earth's weather. The stable layer above is called the stratosphere. The boundary that separates the two layers, the tropopause, is as high as nine miles above the equator and as low as five miles above the poles. In an astounding development, a 2003 study showed that this tropopause has shifted upward over the last two decades by more than 900 feet. [10] The rising tropopause marks another human fingerprint on Earth's climate.

In their search for clues, scientists compared two natural drivers of climate (solar changes and volcanic aerosols) and three human drivers of climate (heat-trapping emissions, aerosol pollution, and ozone depletion), altering these one at a time in their sophisticated models. Changes in the sun during the twentieth century have warmed both the troposphere and stratosphere. But human activities have increased heat-trapping emissions and decreased stratospheric ozone. This has led to the troposphere warming more because the increase in heat-trapping emissions is trapping more of Earth's outgoing heat. The stratosphere has cooled more because there is less ozone to absorb incoming sunlight to heat up the stratosphere. Both these effects combine to shift the boundary upward. Over the period 1979-1999, a study shows that human-induced changes in heat-trapping emissions and ozone account for more than 80 percent of the rise in tropopause height. [10] This is yet another example of how science detectives are quantifying the impact of human activities on climate.

Fingerprint 3: The Surface Heats Up

Measurements show that global average temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, with most of that happening in the last three decades. [1,2] By comparing Earth's temperature over that last century with models comparing climate drivers, a study showed that, from 1950 to the present, most of the warming was caused by heat-trapping emissions from human activities [3]. In fact, heat-trapping emissions are driving the climate about three times more strongly now than they were in 1950. The spatial pattern of where this warming is occurring around the globe indicates human-induced causes. Even accounting for the occasional short-lived cooling from volcanic events and moderate levels of cooling from aerosol pollution as well as minor fluctuations in the sun's output in the last 30 years, heat-trapping emissions far outweigh any other current climate driver. Once again, our scientific fingerprinting identifies human activities as the main driver of our warming climate.

Human Causes, Human Solutions

The identification of humans as the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address. Because of past emissions, we cannot avoid some level of warming from the heat-trapping emissions already present in the atmosphere, some of which (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) last for 100 years or more. However, with aggressive emission reductions as well as flexibility in adapting to those changes we cannot avoid, we have a small window in which to avoid truly dangerous warming and provide future generations with a sustainable world. This will require immediate and sustained action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions through increased energy efficiency, expanding our use of renewable energy, and slowing deforestation (among other solutions).




Elvis, although I understand your skepticism about human contributions to climate change, it's hard to dispute the data above.

Personally, I'll listen to a group of non-partisan, diverse group of scientists vs. a "fancy-talkin'" British politician.

[binnie]

Hello wall, meet head..........

[Seshmeister]

The only scientists that don't believe that humans are having a huge impact on climate change are a few noisy American ones who are not climatologists.

[Seshmeister]

But Christopher Monckton would have tore gore apart...:biggrin:


:elvis:


No surprise you would latch onto that upper class twit. :D

His arguments are technical to the point that no one apart from a climatologist can understand them and they all say he's talking shit.

Hmmmm.

You do know that the right wing nut education was in Classical Greek not science?

George Monbiot: This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science.comment)

This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong


Deniers are cock-a-hoop at an aristocrat's claims that global warming is a UN hoax. But the physics is bafflingly bad

For the past nine days my inbox has been filling up with messages labelled "Your scam exposed", "The great fraud unravels" and "How do you feel now, asshole?". They are referring to a new "scientific paper", which proves that the "climate change scare" is a tale "worthier of St John the Divine than of science".

Published in two parts on consecutive Sundays, it runs to a total of 52 pages, containing graphs, tables and references. To my correspondents, to a good many journalists and to thousands of delighted bloggers, this paper clinches it: climate change is a hoax perpetrated by a left wing conspiracy coordinated by the United Nations.

So which was the august journal that published it? Science? Nature? Geophysical Research Letters? Not quite. It was the Sunday Telegraph. In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in that publication, it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist.

The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing "the truth".

The warming effects of carbon dioxide, Lord Monckton claims, have been exaggerated, distorted and made up altogether. One example of the outrageous fraud the UN body has committed is the elimination from its temperature graphs of the "medieval warm period", which, he claims, was "real, global and up to 3C warmer than now". He runs two graphs side by side, one of which shows the temperature record over the past 1,000 years as rendered by the UN panel, and the other purporting to show real temperatures over the same period.

The world was so hot 600 years ago, he maintains, that "there was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none". By contrast the planet is currently much cooler than climate scientists predicted. In 1988, for example, the world's most celebrated climatologist, James Hansen of Nasa, "told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch)".

Most importantly, "the UN repealed a fundamental physical law", doubling the size of the constant (lambda) in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. By assigning the wrong value to lambda, the UN's panel has exaggerated the sensitivity of the climate to extra carbon dioxide. Monckton's analysis looks impressive. It is nonsense from start to finish.

His claims about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation have been addressed by someone who does know what he's talking about, Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He begins by pointing out that Stefan-Boltzmann is a description of radiation from a "black body" - an idealised planet that absorbs all the electromagnetic radiation that reaches it. The Earth is not a black body. It reflects some of the radiation it receives back into space.

Schmidt points out that Monckton also forgets, in making his calculations, that "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept": in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes. If you don't take this into account, the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide looks much smaller. This is about as fundamental a mistake as you can make in climate science.

What of his other claims? Well, the reason the "medieval warm period" doesn't show up on the UN panel's graphs is simple. As far as climatologists can tell, there wasn't one. So why did the Vikings, as Monckton points out, settle in Greenland?

As a paper published in Reviews of Geophysics shows, Vikings first arrived in Greenland at the very beginning of the "warm period" Monckton discusses, when temperatures, even according to his graph, were lower than they are today. They did so because life had become too hot for them in their adopted home (Iceland): not climatically, but politically. There does appear to have been a slight warming in some parts of the northern hemisphere. There is no reliable evidence that this was a global phenomenon. As for the Chinese naval squadron sailing round the Arctic, it is pure bunkum - a myth long discredited by serious historians.

So what of those graphs? Look at them carefully and you see that they are measuring two different things: global temperatures (the UN panel's progression) and European temperatures (Monckton's line). You will also discover that the scales are different.

As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate - high, medium and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was "the most plausible".

As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000. But a climatologist called Patrick Michaels took the graph from Hansen's paper, erased the medium and low scenarios and - in testimony to Congress - presented the high curve as Hansen's prediction for climate change. A memo sent in July from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a US company whose power is largely supplied by coal, revealed that Michaels has long been funded by electricity companies. "In February this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels." Michaels, it says, meets periodically with industry representatives to discuss their activities in countering stories about climate change.

Pat Michaels's misrepresentation of Hansen's claims was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear, and somehow transmuted into an "error" of 300&#37;. Monckton gives no source for his claim about Hansen, but Crichton's novel features in his references. The howlers go on and on. There is scarcely a line in Lord Monckton's paper which is not wildly wrong.

Yet none of this appears to embarrass the Sunday Telegraph, which championed his findings this week in a leading article. I think I know what the problem is. At a meeting of 150 senior journalists last year, who had gathered to discuss climate change, the chairman asked how many people in the audience had a science degree. Three of us raised our hands. Readers cannot expect a newspaper editor to possess a detailed understanding of atmospheric physics, but there should at least be someone who knows what science looks like whom the editor consults before running a piece.

A scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means it has been subject to scrutiny by other experts in the field. This doesn't suggest that it's the last word on the subject, but it does mean it is worth discussing. For newspapers such as the Sunday Telegraph the test seems to be much simpler. If they don't understand it, it must be science.

[Blaze]

You know , Elvis.....
If you wouldn't bring it up.....
No one would talk about it.....
Just leave it....
Non-issue

[Nickdfresh]

Jesus Fucking Christ...

THERE IS NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT against human contribution to global warming...

Even Exxon-Mobil has given up and now acknowledges it after years of trying to fund junk science to contradict actual science...

[thome]

Jesus Fucking Christ...

THERE IS NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT against human contribution to global warming...

Even Exxon-Mobil has given up and now acknowledges it after years of trying to fund junk science to contradict actual science...


There is also no serious argument that it would be any different without human existence.

-Global Warming Debates-, in refference to being completely caused by human impact is a tool to stimulate conversation between people who need so desperatly to place the blame on how one defines existence.

Soon you will be hearing about how -The Earth- is warming at a faster rate than ever before because of carbon footprint cause by contribution of the global industrial complex ..bla bla ablll (good time to also throw in THE BCE!!!...)

Oh SNAP!!! that is what they have always been saying....key words for the slight of hand blind...."at a faster rate".....Based on what....

Yeap, hollow bullsh~t

-Ice Cores/ Layers- from 100K years ago show that this happends every 10,000 or so with regular predictable outcome, and we only had Volkswagons back then !!!!

Do the research, open your fukking eyes, quit trying to make money off the rertards and stf'up!(not directed at the, nick of the "D" freache), but towards the fear mongers.

A Gore ......so desperate to stand out in the press, for something.... anything...so needy to be recognized, so empty, looking for vindication,,,, the expressing a need for attention with out any talent or insight of his own....

Kinda like Brittany.....

Do you think if all this falls away and Al is no longer Leading The CAUSE ....he will get on drugs, exit limos.... and maybe show his Vag...?

[LoungeMachine]

There is also no serious argument that it would be any different without human existence.

-


Bullshit.

But then again, you're an idiot who no one pays any attention to anyway, so what does it matter....

:gulp:

Moronic paint-huffing troll that you are....

[thome]

Bullshit.

But then again, you're an idiot who no one pays any attention to anyway, so what does it matter....

:gulp:

Moronic paint-huffing troll that you are....


Too true.

but, who's to say that the ice core guys aren't reading the data wrong. I mean they just have a layer of ice from every winter detailing climatic temperatrures, based on the thickness and mineral and vegetable content, frozen solid inside artic, greenland, antartic,canada, any every other continend that has had ice on it steadily for the last 700 million years....

Come to think of I trust Al Gore more.

And his scientists and thier CONCRETE DATA from temperatures gages outside the weather at Ch 12 action news, for the last 68 years...

[Nickdfresh]

Bullshit.

But then again, you're an idiot who no one pays any attention to anyway, so what does it matter....

:gulp:

Moronic paint-huffing troll that you are....

Dude, you actually read that shit? :biggrin:

[Nickdfresh]

Too true.

but, who's to say that the ice core guys aren't reading the data wrong. I mean they just have a layer of ice from every winter detailing climatic temperatrures, based on the thickness and mineral and vegetable content, frozen solid inside artic, greenland, antartic,canada, any every other continend that has had ice on it steadily for the last 700 million years....

Come to think of I trust Al Gore more.

And his scientists and thier CONCRETE DATA from temperatures gages outside the weather at Ch 12 action news, for the last 68 years...


LMFAO!! an infantile retard "hand" worker with barely a sixth grade education is now critiquing scientists...

Classic!:)

[LoungeMachine]

Dude, you actually read that shit? :biggrin:

Remember those "speed reading" courses where they show you how to just "skim" looking for certain words?

I can read a page-long thome post in under 3 seconds. :)

:gulp:

But odds are 50/50 he mentions me or The West Wing, so his mancrush on me continues...

[kwame k]

Jesus Fucking Christ...

THERE IS NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT against human contribution to global warming...

Even Exxon-Mobil has given up and now acknowledges it after years of trying to fund junk science to contradict actual science...

Reminiscent of the Tobacco Industry trying the same move in the 50/60's.

[FORD]

Reminiscent of the Tobacco Industry trying the same move in the 50/60's.

That's exactly what it is. Same with the corn lobby running those "Really, there's NOTHING wrong with HFCS, we promise!!!" ads.

Corporate sponsored "scientists" always coming up with exactly the results they were paid to find.

[thome]

LMFAO!! an infantile retard "hand" worker with barely a sixth grade education is now critiquing scientists...

Classic!:)

Yeap!

I left school after sitxh grade.

I have more knowlege than close minded twits like you.

Who only need one answere to fit your agenda...your close minded agenda of I believe that guy..


Remember those "speed reading" courses where they show you how to just "skim" looking for certain words?

I can read a page-long thome post in under 3 seconds.



But odds are 50/50 he mentions me or The West Wing, so his mancrush on me continues...


You are more than likely most of the issue with -The West Wing- and how you stickied it in -The Front- because you only have E- Entertainment style research to back you up.

You delete or Dump any thread you don't care for with the issue of it doesn't belong in -The Front-, but if you read the list of active f=Front thread 60% are complete Bullsh!t half assed commentary without any reality in fact whatsoever.
Two faced douche, I say...

BURN HIM!! I SAY!!!

[thome]

That's exactly what it is. Same with the corn lobby running those "Really, there's NOTHING wrong with HFCS, we promise!!!" ads.

Corporate sponsored "scientists" always coming up with exactly the results they were paid to find.


Is that "Really", all you need to confirm your position...?

It's the "SAME A CIGGARETTS"..................?//////////////////?????????

Left Wing Scientists coming up with what makes more money for thier agenda....Sounds exactly the same written your way or mine.


Did they "REALLY" give Al Gore a Nobel Peace prize....?

But you go on and on about the Grammies and what a sell out it is.....:pullinghair:

[Big Train]

I don't understand this, why there is such an absence of debate. What is to be afraid of? What's so bad about saying nobody knows? Why the dictator mentality when arguing about science? THERE IS NOOOOOOOOOO REAL ARGUMENT AGAINST...has, oh let's say, a fundamentalist feel, about it. And we know how people feel about those fundamentalists...

And I don't buy this bullshit that every last person who disagrees with Gore's position is in someone's pockets. Some probably are, that's a given, but not all. Any reasonable person would have to say that 700 of the world's climatologists, who know far more than any untrained eye reading their findings, know just a tad more than us. Why are these 700 individuals not allowed to speak?

If Gore's message is to be believed, that the outcomes COULD be on that level, then your damned right I want to hear the other side to. I want to hear every last word every credible scientist (and these guys are) has to say. These are theories and models we are talking about here, not a concrete fact like the sky is blue.

The fact that they wouldn't let this guy speak, or anyone who opposed, takes away from Gore's argument, it doesn't enhance it.

[hideyoursheep]

What's interesting to me is the same RW naysayers who believe in a God they cannot see, choose not to acknowledge global warming because the can't feel or see it directly in front of them.

.....pass me the sunscreen.

[LoungeMachine]

Yeap!

I left school after sitxh grade.

I have more knowlege than close minded twits like you.

Who only need one answere to fit your agenda...your close minded agenda of I believe that guy..




You are more than likely most of the issue with -The West Wing- and how you stickied it in -The Front- because you only have E- Entertainment style research to back you up.

You delete or Dump any thread you don't care for with the issue of it doesn't belong in -The Front-, but if you read the list of active f=Front thread 60% are complete Bullsh!t half assed commentary without any reality in fact whatsoever.
Two faced douche, I say...

BURN HIM!! I SAY!!!


Damn, thome.

If only I fucking cared what you thought.....

Aw shucks.

:gulp:

Sixth grade? I guessed fourth, so I guess I was wrong.

[Big Train]

What's interesting to me is the same RW naysayers who believe in a God they cannot see, choose not to acknowledge global warming because the can't feel or see it directly in front of them.

.....pass me the sunscreen.

Likewise, Climate Change fundies, who when presented with a shred of conflicting data, throw hissy fits that the science CANNOT be argued. Different religion, same result...

[Nickdfresh]

I don't understand this, why there is such an absence of debate. What is to be afraid of? What's so bad about saying nobody knows? Why the dictator mentality when arguing about science? THERE IS NOOOOOOOOOO REAL ARGUMENT AGAINST...has, oh let's say, a fundamentalist feel, about it. And we know how people feel about those fundamentalists...

And I don't buy this bullshit that every last person who disagrees with Gore's position is in someone's pockets. Some probably are, that's a given, but not all. Any reasonable person would have to say that 700 of the world's climatologists, who know far more than any untrained eye reading their findings, know just a tad more than us. Why are these 700 individuals not allowed to speak?

If Gore's message is to be believed, that the outcomes COULD be on that level, then your damned right I want to hear the other side to. I want to hear every last word every credible scientist (and these guys are) has to say. These are theories and models we are talking about here, not a concrete fact like the sky is blue.

The fact that they wouldn't let this guy speak, or anyone who opposed, takes away from Gore's argument, it doesn't enhance it.


Because it is sort of like debating if the earth is flat or not. The arguments against human contribution to global climate change are not even disputed by those that previously did so. The real debate is if we can practically do much about it.

But debating this is tantamount to 9/11 conspiracies or whether we faked the moon landing or not...

[thome]

Because it is sort of like debating if the earth is flat or not. The arguments against human contribution to global climate change are not even disputed by those that previously did so. The real debate is if we can practically do much about it.

But debating this is tantamount to 9/11 conspiracies or whether we faked the moon landing or not...

Solid Commentary....


But debating this is tantamount to 9/11 conspiracies or whether we faked the moon landing or not...[/

OK MF'ER Stop and dissist immedialtely with attempting to steal my ACT!!!

Ending your comments with a completely LOONIE sentence..#######( insert (TM) here dammitt)

[Big Train]

Because it is sort of like debating if the earth is flat or not. The arguments against human contribution to global climate change are not even disputed by those that previously did so. The real debate is if we can practically do much about it.

But debating this is tantamount to 9/11 conspiracies or whether we faked the moon landing or not...

These are theories, not facts. A theory can and always should (ya know, scientific method and all) be debated. A fact cannot. Knowing which is which is an important thing...

I would say they still disagree on the basic tenets of it.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7)

[FORD]

These are theories, not facts. A theory can and always should (ya know, scientific method and all) be debated. A fact cannot. Knowing which is which is an important thing...



But the paid scientists DO debate facts. They did so in the 911 coverup, and the Warren Commission coverup, just to name two examples, without sidetracking the thread. The tobacco industry "scientists" did the same for years, just as the corn lobby scientists are doing now. They avoid (to quote former President Gore) the "inconvenient truth" which opposes their desired outcome.

And then you have idiots like Michelle Bachmann talking incredibly stupid bullshit like this on the House floor........

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VNk--ZXoGVY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VNk--ZXoGVY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

[LoungeMachine]

:lmao:

Michelle Bachmann is an absolute moron.

:gulp:

Too dumb to live.

[Nickdfresh]

These are theories, not facts. A theory can and always should (ya know, scientific method and all) be debated. A fact cannot. Knowing which is which is an important thing...

I would say they still disagree on the basic tenets of it.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7)

Right. Just like Global Warming is a fact...a fact NOT debated by actual scientists, only by corporatists seeking to extend their run....

The only argument is economic, not scientific...

LOL The GOP website over the 700 "dissenting" "scientists?" Is that like the list on the internet of the thousands of "engineers" that are dissidents over the 9/11 "official report?"

[ULTRAMAN VH]

10 Questions for Al Gore
by Steven Milloy (more by this author)
Posted 04/24/2009 ET




Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore, is the star witness today in the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Democrats’ cap-and-tax global warming bill.

The bill -- recently introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Hollywood) and Edward Markey (D-Kennedywood) -- is labeled the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” which is as Orwellian a name as the “Employee Free Choice Act,” which is of course the way to deny secret ballots to employees in union elections.

This bill should be named the “Al Gore Enrichment Act. ”

House Republicans will have a chance to do better than their Senate colleagues did in January, when no tough questions were asked.

Here are a few questions Gore should answer in the hearing tomorrow:

1. You are a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner-Perkins and a co-founder of the United Kingdom-based investment firm of Generation Investment Management, each of which stands to gain financially from greenhouse gas regulation. Please describe any other financial interests that you have in any other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation.

2. In October 2008, the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story on how Kleiner Perkins had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations. What will be your share of any profits from these ventures?

3. How much of your own money have you contributed to Kleiner-Perkins, Generation Investment Management and other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation? If you have not contributed significant amounts of your own capital to these businesses, what, then, is your role in them? Are you a lobbyist? Are you the face of their public relations efforts? Is your job to run around scaring politicians and the public into enacting greenhouse gas regulation?

4. Is Kleiner-Perkins’ business plan to have you press for legislation and regulation favorable to its clients in order to make them more attractive and available for sale to the public, at which time Kleiner-Perkins would cash out, leaving the public invested in not-ready-for-prime-time companies that have dubious financial prospects and that are dependent on taxpayer subsidies?

5. Your co-founder with Generation Investment Management is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood. Goldman Sachs is lobbying for global warming legislation and is a part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap-and-trade legislation would be traded. Do you or Generation Investment Management stand to benefit in anyway from these relationships?

6. Generation Investment Management’s web site says the firm provides investment advice to clients. Who are Generation Investment Management’s clients and how do they stand to profit from upcoming environmental and energy legislation and regulation? Will these clients share their profits with you and/or Generation Investment Management?

7. When you left public service in January 2001, your personal net worth was perhaps $2 million. In 2007, your personal net worth was reported to be on the order of $100 million. How much of this fortune is related, directly or indirectly, to your advocacy of legislation to reduce “global warming”?

8. When you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, why did you not disclose to the Committee and to the public your relationships with Kleiner-Perkins and Generation Investment Management? Generation Investment Management’s web site says, “Integrity and honesty are the bedrock of our business. We demand the highest ethical standards in our work and in our personal lives.” In light of this statement, how to you explain your failure to inform the Senate Committee of your financial conflicts of interest?

9. You travel all over the world in jets and limos, own a houseboat, use 20 times more electricity than the average American, and stand to make a fortune that most millionaires would envy. Yet you tell Americans to downsize their lives, such as by limiting their travel, using less heat and air conditioning, and drying their clothes outside on a clothesline. Describe for us, in detail, your personal “carbon footprint.”

10. If you are wrong about humans causing catastrophic global warming, will you give all the money you “earned” from your alarmism back?

[FORD]

I'll bet "Steven Milloy" (whoever he is) didn't ask these sort of questions to Darth Cheney and his Halliburton investments, in regards to how they improved with the wars he started, and all the no bid contracts that followed as a result.

[Big Train]

Right. Just like Global Warming is a fact...a fact NOT debated by actual scientists, only by corporatists seeking to extend their run....

The only argument is economic, not scientific...

LOL The GOP website over the 700 "dissenting" "scientists?" Is that like the list on the internet of the thousands of "engineers" that are dissidents over the 9/11 "official report?"

Stop with your silly side arguments and respond to what I'm asking.

Global Warming is NOT a fact, it is a theory.

If I brought you 2000 scientists who disagreed (I did a quick google search, said senate.gov, thought that would be good enough, no GOP link implied...you could get the same info from an agnostic...LOL, can't believe I said that...news source of your choice), you would still brush that aside not on a factual basis, but on your problem with them disagreeing with your version of Climate FACT (which is still a theory).

This is a religion and the hardliners in that movement are just as crazed as a baptist dancing with snakes on a Sunday morning. I don't want to hear anyone who buys this with no questions asked whine about fundamentalist Christians or Muslims anymore. You are no better.

[LoungeMachine]

10 Questions for Al Gore
by Steven Milloy (more by this author)
Posted 04/24/2009 ET



?

Too bad you don't have enough game to write your own question, let alone 10.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Stop with your silly side arguments and respond to what I'm asking.

I think I did respond to you, supergenius...


Global Warming is NOT a fact, it is a theory.

I don't think you actually have the slightest inclination. It isn't a "fact" or a "theory." It's a controversy and an issue...

Very different concepts...


If I brought you 2000 scientists who disagreed (I did a quick google search, said senate.gov, thought that would be good enough, no GOP link implied...you could get the same info from an agnostic...LOL, can't believe I said that...news source of your choice), you would still brush that aside not on a factual basis, but on your problem with them disagreeing with your version of Climate FACT (which is still a theory).

Right. Except you linked the same assclown politician hacks you so imply you detest. The very same ones that are prone to corporatist lobbying dollars. You really think these assholes are about the truth?

The "factual basis" is that any retard could call themselves a "scientist" and post how much they think global warming is all bullshit. But then, we could ask how many peer-reviewed papers they've written, and what their actual credentials are...

The "fact" is that the earth is getting warmer. The only "theory" is whether it is happening as some sort of cycle or whether human activity pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing at least a good deal of it....

The fact is that most climatologists agree that that is the case. And that the only ones that don't seem to be on the take of major corporations...


This is a religion and the hardliners in that movement are just as crazed as a baptist dancing with snakes on a Sunday morning. I don't want to hear anyone who buys this with no questions asked whine about fundamentalist Christians or Muslims anymore. You are no better.

Right. Except, you are the one with a premeditated belief system that actuates what he wants to believe based solely on his narrow, selfish perceived short termed interests. Fuck you! You're the Baptist that "believes" if he dances with a snake(oil), he'll get into heaven and everything will just be alright. Not me...

[ULTRAMAN VH]

I'll bet "Steven Milloy" (whoever he is) didn't ask these sort of questions to Darth Cheney and his Halliburton investments, in regards to how they improved with the wars he started, and all the no bid contracts that followed as a result.

I thought this thread was about Al Gore, and global warming? :umm:

[Nickdfresh]

I thought this thread was about Al Gore, and global warming? :umm:

Then why do you never actually comment on global warming, and resort to the same tried old "hypocrite" cliches?

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Too bad you don't have enough game to write your own question, let alone 10.

:gulp:

Piss off, Gladys!!!:fufu:

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Then why do you never actually comment on global warming, and resort to the same tried old "hypocrite" cliches?

I have commented on this topic in the past. I believe while we are on this planet we should take steps to keep it clean. But when some dick bag opportunist politician gets involved, you can bet he or she will come up with a get rich quik scheme that will again, for the umteenth time, take another chunk out of the middle class taxpayer. :barf:

[thome]

It beats signing another curb impovement bill or lobbying for what trees, go in the retired mayors new park.

If you think Glogal Warming Legislation is more than that your just a idiot.

[Nickdfresh]

I have commented on this topic in the past. I believe while we are on this planet we should take steps to keep it clean. But when some dick bag opportunist politician gets involved, you can bet he or she will come up with a get rich quik scheme that will again, for the umteenth time, take another chunk out of the middle class taxpayer. :barf:

You mean when a politician actually shows leadership? And green energy isn't necessarily going to take a chunk out of the middle class. It may actually enrich them in the long run with jobs that cannot be exported...

[LoungeMachine]

If you think Glogal Warming Legislation is more than that your just a idiot.

:mirror:

[GAR]

But the paid scientists DO debate facts.
<object width="500" height="405">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VNk--ZXoGVY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></object>

Factoids are not facts, they lob them back and forth at each other the way the children probably lobbed cat turds at you in the sandbox during school recess.

Global warming is a lie and I'll prove it:

You [x] May calculate the weight by average, of the amount of carbon particulates spewed from a smokestack at an industrial plant.

You [x] May Not calculate the weight by average, of a big-assed FUCKING VOLCANO which spews any amount, at any time in any way it decides to rupture forth.

Fuck "global warming". It's a lie, because what they propose to calculate is not quantizable in numbers against nature, which does it's own thing regardless of what Man does with his.

Another thing, carbon is a heavier molecule than Oxygen, (20% of the atmosphere) and Nitrogen (80% of the fucking air I wished you'd stop breathing) and therefore, since what comes up comes down to the ground anyways, means nothing we throw up in the air can change the climate a fraction of any amount!

-----------------------------------

Done. There ya go, this topics' over like a staked Vampire so let's shut the fuck up about it, you're all looking like 5th graders here..

[Big Train]

I think I did respond to you, supergenius...

If you did, I wouldn't have asked the question.

I don't think you actually have the slightest inclination. It isn't a "fact" or a "theory." It's a controversy and an issue...

Very different concepts...

There is a controversy about the theory of global warming, which has become a political issue. Get it straight, use a little logic.


Right. Except you linked the same assclown politician hacks you so imply you detest. The very same ones that are prone to corporatist lobbying dollars. You really think these assholes are about the truth?

The "factual basis" is that any retard could call themselves a "scientist" and post how much they think global warming is all bullshit. But then, we could ask how many peer-reviewed papers they've written, and what their actual credentials are...

I'm open to that, never said I wasn't. There are very credible people saying things Gore doesn't want to hear. I'm not the one shying away from trying to find the truth, nor am I saying I know I'm right. In both of those cases, that would be you.

The "fact" is that the earth is getting warmer. The only "theory" is whether it is happening as some sort of cycle or whether human activity pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing at least a good deal of it....

Gee, thanks for clarifying the obvious. Now that it has been established, why are these men not allowed to speak?

The fact is that most climatologists agree that that is the case. And that the only ones that don't seem to be on the take of major corporations...

Again, I did say all of this in a previous post. The point your missing is that their science needs to be debated. All this swerving and being worried about corporate influence is fine, but let's get to brass tacks. It's all I've said.



Right. Except, you are the one with a premeditated belief system that actuates what he wants to believe based solely on his narrow, selfish perceived short termed interests. Fuck you! You're the Baptist that "believes" if he dances with a snake(oil), he'll get into heaven and everything will just be alright. Not me...

Fuck you, your holiness. Do tell, exactly and specifically, what my short termed interests are, that are so selfish, since you know so much about me. Also tell me how I'm dancing with snake (oil). Unless you have seen my portfolio, which you have not, you have no idea what I am or not invested in. And tell me again, why everyone is so afraid to debate science.

[hideyoursheep]

:lol: But I take it personal.

:rolleyes:

The Love Train has left the station.

:lol:

[Big Train]

Yup, you sure do. Your a real broad about it. Instead of adding something to the conversation, you are bringing up a pissing match from last week I thought we had all moved on from and attempting to insert it into the conversation.

I'm not upset with Nick at all. I'm just asking him to back up his claims about me with something with more substance than a poorly thought out personal attack. Perhaps even stick with the debate at hand and keep the side stuff to a minimum. Something I believe I asked you too. If not, I would ask you now.

[Nickdfresh]

Factoids are not facts, they lob them back and forth at each other the way the children probably lobbed cat turds at you in the sandbox during school recess.

Global warming is a lie and I'll prove it:

You [x] May calculate the weight by average, of the amount of carbon particulates spewed from a smokestack at an industrial plant.

You [x] May Not calculate the weight by average, of a big-assed FUCKING VOLCANO which spews any amount, at any time in any way it decides to rupture forth.

Fuck "global warming". It's a lie, because what they propose to calculate is not quantizable in numbers against nature, which does it's own thing regardless of what Man does with his.

Another thing, carbon is a heavier molecule than Oxygen, (20% of the atmosphere) and Nitrogen (80% of the fucking air I wished you'd stop breathing) and therefore, since what comes up comes down to the ground anyways, means nothing we throw up in the air can change the climate a fraction of any amount!

-----------------------------------

Done. There ya go, this topics' over like a staked Vampire so let's shut the fuck up about it, you're all looking like 5th graders here..

The only thing you can prove is what a hunt and peck, Google punching retard you are...

Go fix a guitar, bitch....

[Nickdfresh]

Fuck you, your holiness.

How'd you know I was the "Pope?"


Do tell, exactly and specifically, what my short termed interests are, that are so selfish, since you know so much about me. Also tell me how I'm dancing with snake (oil). Unless you have seen my portfolio, which you have not, you have no idea what I am or not invested in. And tell me again, why everyone is so afraid to debate science.

You're not basing anything on science, just obstification and I could give a shit about your portfolio...


....

I'm not upset with Nick at all. I'm just asking him to back up his claims about me with something with more substance than a poorly thought out personal attack...

But I'm not making any "claims." You're the one claiming some intimate understanding of why global warming is fake...and my personal attack was better thought out than yours was...

[hideyoursheep]

Yup, you sure do. Your a real broad about it. Instead of adding something to the conversation,....
You never added anything to the conversation with the last 3 posts, toolbag.

[sadaist]

Maybe..... but I don't think the bear's sexual orientation is the primary issue here. The fact that he may have had to swim 60 miles to find that "ice penis" is.


Wow! 60 miles is pretty far from any land. The photographer must be on a boat....just cruising the open sea looking for anomalies.;)

Would you happen to have a link to this particular "fact" about your polar bear pic?

[sadaist]

Corporate sponsored "scientists" always coming up with exactly the results they were paid to find.

You mean like the global warming myth? Why would the government want us to believe this? More power? More taxes? More regulations? More control? Nah, it's because they have our best interests in mind...like they always have.:rolleyes:

[Seshmeister]

Factoids are not facts, they lob them back and forth at each other the way the children probably lobbed cat turds at you in the sandbox during school recess.

Global warming is a lie and I'll prove it:

You [x] May calculate the weight by average, of the amount of carbon particulates spewed from a smokestack at an industrial plant.

You [x] May Not calculate the weight by average, of a big-assed FUCKING VOLCANO which spews any amount, at any time in any way it decides to rupture forth.

Fuck "global warming". It's a lie, because what they propose to calculate is not quantizable in numbers against nature, which does it's own thing regardless of what Man does with his.


I held your hand and took you through this a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/front-line/54701-retarded-manchild-allowed-speak-house-committee-2.html#post1342913


Not unusually there is a terrible fucking flaw in your argument. Someone has of course done the calculations. In fact lots of people have. Strangely enough the worlds scientists don't sit about doing nothing waiting for you to come up with ideas.

Secondly the answer is that each year volcanoes emit 200 million tons of CO2 which sounds a lot. It used to be a lot more than humans do. Unfortunately humans are now up to 27 billion metric tons, the US accounts for over 6 billion alone.

So to answer your question people create over 100 times more greenhouse gasses and the US over 20 times more than all the volcanoes in the world.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[ZahZoo]

The "factual basis" is that any retard could call themselves a "scientist" and post how much they think global warming is all bullshit. But then, we could ask how many peer-reviewed papers they've written, and what their actual credentials are...

The "fact" is that the earth is getting warmer. The only "theory" is whether it is happening as some sort of cycle or whether human activity pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing at least a good deal of it....

The fact is that most climatologists agree that that is the case. And that the only ones that don't seem to be on the take of major corporations...


I firmly believe that the ultimate fact is none of our greatest scientific minds and models have produced a comprehensive scientific conclusion that "global warming" in it's current form is directly attributable to human activity.

Yes there are trends in human produced Co2 data that corelate with a most recent warming trend on Earth. No dispute there.

But then if you factor in solar activities we're currently seeing record lowering of global temps and increases in polar ice caps that counter the whole human global warming trends. Add to that there have been significant warming and cooling trends that last several 100,000 years that varied widely and we still don't know exactly the big picture causes.

Point is... we don't know enough to definatively say human crap is behind current climate data. Most likely we're a part of it... but there's far bigger model at work that even our geniuses can't definatively explain.

My take... be a good citizen and take care of the earth. Don't be so damn arrogant to think we fully understand or can control Mother Nature. She can bitch slap us into fossil fuel in a blink of an eye...

[Big Train]

How'd you know I was the "Pope?"

Friendship with Satan/Ford? :biggrin:


You're not basing anything on science, just obstification and I could give a shit about your portfolio...

But I'm not making any "claims." You're the one claiming some intimate understanding of why global warming is fake...and my personal attack was better thought out than yours was...

No not really. I literally just said in a previous I'm not saying I'm right. Where anywhere in this thread did I claim I knew the anwsers? I've said that these 700 scientists know far more than anyone of us (go ahead, scroll up). I've just repeatedly asked you, and I will once more, why aren't these guys allowed to speak? That hardly qualifies as obstification. You've just danced around it the question with various tangents about corp. boogeyman and your projections.

[Big Train]

You never added anything to the conversation with the last 3 posts, toolbag.

You haven't in the last three weeks, but who's counting? Could be longer than that.

[bueno bob]

The cool part is that I actually read and can comprehend what I read. It seems, over several years of studying this (say, eight) that global warming has been directly impacted by human beings and the only real argument left is whether or not anything can actually be done about it at this point. Anything else ("It's real!", "It's not!") is a waste of time to me. I've found the answer to be very obvious to anybody who actually listens and thinks a bit.

Doesn't stop me from trying to impact it, though. I don't drive any more than I absolutely have to (and carpool when possible, or use public transportation and I have plenty access to it) and I'm EXTREMELY conservative with my energy usage and I'm a mad hatter when it comes to recycling.

Of course, in addition to 'doing my part', I keep my electric bills WAY down as well, so the immediate/direct benefit to myself is the biggest bonus. Conservation has many benefits, the most immediate of which is financially. Recycling has it's own benefit on local ecology, which of course impacts globally. I'm no Ed Begley Jr., but I'm not a fool either.

It's not a matter of Republican vs. Democrat, or scientists vs. other scientists. Conservation for financial benefit is a matter of common sense. Some have it - too many don't.

[binnie]

Doesn't stop me from trying to impact it, though. I don't drive any more than I absolutely have to (and carpool when possible, or use public transportation and I have plenty access to it) .

You and me both - it's amazing how quickly you get used to public transport/walking.....

[kwame k]

The cool part is that I actually read and can comprehend what I read. It seems, over several years of studying this (say, eight) that global warming has been directly impacted by human beings and the only real argument left is whether or not anything can actually be done about it at this point. Anything else ("It's real!", "It's not!") is a waste of time to me. I've found the answer to be very obvious to anybody who actually listens and thinks a bit.

Doesn't stop me from trying to impact it, though. I don't drive any more than I absolutely have to (and carpool when possible, or use public transportation and I have plenty access to it) and I'm EXTREMELY conservative with my energy usage and I'm a mad hatter when it comes to recycling.

Of course, in addition to 'doing my part', I keep my electric bills WAY down as well, so the immediate/direct benefit to myself is the biggest bonus. Conservation has many benefits, the most immediate of which is financially. Recycling has it's own benefit on local ecology, which of course impacts globally. I'm no Ed Begley Jr., but I'm not a fool either.

It's not a matter of Republican vs. Democrat, or scientists vs. other scientists. Conservation for financial benefit is a matter of common sense. Some have it - too many don't.


That's it..........To even think for one second that humans haven't had an impact on this planet is just plain stupid. When rivers catch on fire and you can see the fucking smog in place like California, how the fuck can you say that we are not polluting the fuck out of this planet. Look at Russia and there are areas in that country that are so polluted that nothing can live there and rivers that once flowed are dried up. The Salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest, in some areas are gone.

Look at Mexico City and see how bad the pollution is there. Jesus Christ, it's all around you if you just open your eyes and look.

Yes, I will concede that Scientist don't know the exact extent of the damage we have caused or the exact date when Global Warming will take effect, on that there is debate. Too many factors and what we do now will greatly impact the future.

I've said this before........How can anyone defend pollution and how can anyone think that switching to cleaner alternatives is a bad thing?

To reiterate, does anyone here honestly believe we are not fucking this planet up and have been for 100's of years or at least since the Industrial Revolution.

[Jesus Christ]

Look at Russia and there are areas in that country that are so polluted that nothing can live there and rivers that once flowed are dried up.

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." - Revelation 8:10-11

Do ye know what the word "Chernobyl" is in English, My son?

Wormwood.

[kwame k]

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." - Revelation 8:10-11

Do ye know what the word "Chernobyl" is in English, My son?

Wormwood.


Thanks your Holiness, still waiting on that answer to that thing I was talking to you about last night.

[LoungeMachine]

Thanks your Holiness, still waiting on that answer to that thing I was talking to you about last night.

No, Karen Carpenter will not arise from the dead to marry you.

:gulp:

move on with your life.......

[Seshmeister]

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." - Revelation 8:10-11

Do ye know what the word "Chernobyl" is in English, My son?

Wormwood.

Actually no, not really.

Not that it matters a fuck anyway but no it translates to mugwort.

Wikipedia entry for Chernobyl (Chernobyl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl))

The city is named after the chornobyl' grass, or mugwort. The word itself is a combination of chornyi (чорний, black) and byllia (билл�?, grass blades or stalks), hence it literally means black grass or black stalks.

Sometimes it is erroneously translated as wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), with consequent apocalyptic associations, probably originating from a New York Times article by Serge Schmemann, Chernobyl Fallout: Apocalyptic Tale, July 25, 1986. There, an unnamed "prominent Russian writer" was quoted as claming the Ukrainian word for wormwood was chernobyl.

Actually, the Ukrainian Чорнобиль (chornobyl) and its Russian equivalent Чернобыльник (chernobylnik) refer to the plant mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris). Wormwood is a different plant, Artemisia absinthium, Полин in Ukrainian and Полынь in Russian (both pronounced Polyn). "Polyn" has no English equivalent, but corresponds to the botanical genus Artemisia. Botanically, mugwort is "Common Polyn" (Ukr. Полин звичайний / Rus. Полынь Обыкновенна�?); while wormwood is "Bitter Polyn" (Ukr. Полин гіркий / Rus. Полынь горька�?).


Cheers

:gulp:

[kwame k]

No, Karen Carpenter will not arise from the dead to marry you.

:gulp:

move on with your life.......


Damn, can't blame a guy for trying.

[Seshmeister]

Another thing, carbon is a heavier molecule than Oxygen, (20% of the atmosphere) and Nitrogen (80% of the fucking air I wished you'd stop breathing) and therefore, since what comes up comes down to the ground anyways, means nothing we throw up in the air can change the climate a fraction of any amount!


Hahahaha I missed this first time around.

Think about it GAR.

If your theory was true and gasses didn't mix then since oxygen is heavier than Nitrogen then the bottom 20% of the atmosphere, i.e. all the fucking stuff at ground level would be pure oxygen.

Don't light a cigarette anybody, you'll blow up the planet! :)

But that's only in your planet, back on Earth we have the noble gasses which are all heavier so we would suffocate at sea level.

Of course even a 5th grader knows that gasses mix and we have something called wind and air currents that stimulate this.

Cheers

:gulp:

[kwame k]

Hahahaha I missed this first time around.

Think about it GAR.

If your theory was true and gasses didn't mix then since oxygen is heavier than Nitrogen then the bottom 20% of the atmosphere, i.e. all the fucking stuff at ground level would be pure oxygen.

Don't light a cigarette anybody, you'll blow up the planet! :)

But that's only in your planet, back on Earth we have the noble gasses which are all heavier so we would suffocate at sea level.

Of course even a 5th grader knows that gasses mix and we have something called wind and air currents that stimulate this.

Cheers

:gulp:

Herein lies si-gar's problem, he's dumber than a 5th grader.

[Igosplut]

This is sort of like when gar claimed that he runs his (I'm sure imaginary) diesel truck using drain oil instead of diesel fuel.

[kwame k]

This is sort of like when gar claimed that he runs his (I'm sure imaginary) diesel truck using drain oil instead of diesel fuel.


.....that and his imaginary mod powers he thinks he has here.

[FORD]

This is sort of like when gar claimed that he runs his (I'm sure imaginary) diesel truck using drain oil instead of diesel fuel.

They say that every lie has a small grain of truth to it.

In GAR's case, this means that he probably uses recycled drain oil as a lube when he's taking it up the ass in the truck stop glory hole. :anal:

[ELVIS]

FORD...

Why is is that your imagination always leads towards gay sex ??

[hideyoursheep]

You haven't in the last three weeks, but who's counting? Could be longer than that.


You dirty prick!








:biggrin:

[ELVIS]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C28avoSrYyQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C28avoSrYyQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4RDHquxGNYk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4RDHquxGNYk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>


Hmmm...


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>


Hmmm...


:elvis:




Richard Lindzen

Industry links

According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[24] was underwritten by OPEC."[25][26] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[27] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander."[28]

Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.[26]

Views on health risks of smoking

Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated[29][30]. In 2001,[30] Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen, "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."[30]

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Industry_links)

[ELVIS]

I hear ya...

But this film, The Man-made Global Warming Hoax, is quite interesting...

I'm watching it now and i'm only on Part 3, but just because I post something, that doesn't mean that I support it 100&#37;


:elvis:

[bueno bob]

Yes, I will concede that Scientist don't know the exact extent of the damage we have caused or the exact date when Global Warming will take effect, on that there is debate. Too many factors and what we do now will greatly impact the future.

This is true. The downside to it is that we don't have 50-100 other suitable Earth-like planets to study global warming on with a similar level, so it's true that the exact date and/or results is in fact open to conjecture on a scientific level. But to say that smog, pollution, industrial waste and human negligence has not impacted it is just dumb at this point, honestly.


I've said this before........How can anyone defend pollution and how can anyone think that switching to cleaner alternatives is a bad thing?

The only way anybody can take that point is if their personal business interests (i.e. cash flow) would be affected directly by it. Money talks - all else walks. Simple as that. Whoever has a financial consideration will argue endlessly to defend that consideration. Hardly matters what the topic is or what the end result is anymore.

[Nickdfresh]

No not really. I literally just said in a previous I'm not saying I'm right. Where anywhere in this thread did I claim I knew the anwsers? I've said that these 700 scientists know far more than anyone of us (go ahead, scroll up). I've just repeatedly asked you, and I will once more, why aren't these guys allowed to speak? That hardly qualifies as obstification. You've just danced around it the question with various tangents about corp. boogeyman and your projections.


Because the "listing" of scientists/engineers, etc. in an effort to "debunk" anything is pretty dubious at best when those listing them have a clear agenda...


April 30, 2008
Heartland Institute's Dennis Avery: Shades of the "Inhofe 400"

By Thomas Schueneman, filed under Climate Science, Editorial Rants, Global Warming News

Heartland Institute list of 500 scientists - BS? Recently James Inhofe, using his power as a United States Senator, released a senate report claiming to contain 400 signatures from “prominent scientists” refuting the overwhelming scientific agreement of the human influence in climate change. Though we haven’t heard much from the good senator in awhile, he has steadfastly held to the claim that “AGW” (anthropogenic global warming) is a conspiracy and the greatest hoax ever foisted upon mankind. 400 scientists were claimed as signatories to the report.

The only problem was that many of the people on the list of signers weren’t even scientists, many that were scientists didn’t ask for or approve their inclusion on the list and held views entirely opposite of Mr. Inhofe. This was a senate report! (I posted on the James Gang fiasco here and here.)

It seems the Heartland Institute, purveyors extraordinaire of denialism, has taken a page out of Inhofe’s playbook.
...

Link (http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2008/04/30/heartland-institutes-dennis-avery-shades-of-the-inhofe-400/)

So, basically, those that try to deny the human contribution to global warming and climate change are pretty much on par with Holocaust deniers and 9/11 Inside Jobbers...

[Big Train]

Because the "listing" of scientists/engineers, etc. in an effort to "debunk" anything is pretty dubious at best when those listing them have a clear agenda...

Not really. If the science of that contradictory opinion is sound, the agenda itself of whomever is irrelevant. Re-read that last sentence again before responding with "WELL THEY MANIPULATE EVERYTHING".

They all have an agenda. Al Gore's isn't as transparent to you perhaps, but any guy both selling the "horrors of global warming" and also making money off the sin tax of "carbon credits" has a wide open, completely dishonest agenda as bad as an oil company. Amazingly, the climate fundies don't see it that way. How is beyond me.

Since we have never clearly heard them debate in a high profile way, the American public is not being told the whole range of scenarios. Now, possibly fundamentally flawed policy is being voted on and money is being spent before we know all we need to know.

So, basically, those that try to deny the human contribution to global warming and climate change are pretty much on par with Holocaust deniers and 9/11 Inside Jobbers...

Well, that is pretty dramatic, but since I just compared "true believers" to religious fundamentalists, I'm ok with it. Or should I through a childish "FUCK YOU", as in your response to me. I could go either way with it.

[ELVIS]

I want to see a real debate!

Let the American People decide!


:elvis:

[hideyoursheep]

I want to see a real debate!

Let the American People decide!


:elvis:

It's a GLOBAL issue, is it not?

There are pictures as evidence, yet there is still some sort of denial by some who choose to stick their heads in the sand, because there are no palm trees in Alaska-yet.

This planet is one-of-a-kind, and to think that pollutants cannot alter an atmosphere that it was never designed to handle (especially at the rate which we pump carcinogens into it) is not only naive, it's ignorant.

[ELVIS]

So you're saying God never designed the planet to handle anything us humans could throw at it ??

[hideyoursheep]

So you're saying God never designed the planet to handle anything us humans could throw at it ??

No. He never intended for us to destroy it. Or else Reagan or Khrushchev would have done it already.

Even they knew the planets's limitations, and the end result would have been a loss.

[Seshmeister]

So you're saying God never designed the planet to handle anything us humans could throw at it ??

In the same way he 'designed' you to handle anything that could be thrown at it.

Now why don't you put that to the test by fucking an African hooker(without a rubber - it's gods law) in the middle of the freeway at rush hour whilst sipping some weed killer. :D

[Seshmeister]

Owning Elvis and Jesus Christ in one thread.

And people say posting on message boards is a complete waste of time...

[scamper]

You mean when a politician actually shows leadership? And green energy isn't necessarily going to take a chunk out of the middle class. It may actually enrich them in the long run with jobs that cannot be exported...

Increasing the price of electricity by fifty percent doesn't affect the middle class?

[kwame k]

Increasing the price of electricity by fifty percent doesn't affect the middle class?
The price of energy has gone up not because of green technology but because of greed. Remember how everyone thought we invaded Iraq for Oil. Turns out it wasn't for their oil per say but to make Cheney a war profiteer.

The price of oil and gas went up to record highs and record profits under Bush's raping of this country, had nothing to do with alternative energy.

[kwame k]

By NOAKI SCHWARTZ, Associated Press Writer Noaki Schwartz, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 29, 3:02 am ET
LOS ANGELES – Sixty percent of Americans live in areas with unhealthy air pollution levels, despite a growing green movement and more stringent laws aimed at improving air quality, the American Lung Association said in a report released Wednesday.

The public-health group ranked the pollution levels of U.S. cities and counties based on air quality measurements that state and local agencies reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency between 2005 and 2007.

Overall, the report found that air pollution at times reaches unhealthy levels in almost every major city and that 186.1 million people live in those areas. The number is much higher than last year's figure of about 125 million people because recent changes to the federal ozone standard mean more counties recognize unhealthy levels of pollution.

Health effects from air pollution include changes in lung function, coughing, heart attacks, lung cancer and premature death.

"Six out of 10 Americans right now as we speak live in areas where the air can be dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, dirty enough to shape how kids' lungs develop and even dirty enough to kill," said Janice E. Nolen, the association's assistant vice president on national policy and advocacy.

Cities including Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and Baltimore have seen improvements in air quality over the last decade, the report said.

The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside region of Southern California remained the metropolitan area with the highest levels of ozone pollution, as it has in each of the past 10 reports. Other metropolitan areas considered to have the most ozone pollution included Houston-Baytown-Huntsville and Dallas-Fort Worth in Texas.

The areas with the most short-term particle pollution or soot were Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pa.; and the California areas of Fresno-Madera, Bakersfield and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside.

The cleanest metro area in all categories was Fargo, N.D.

The rankings in the "State of the Air Report" were based on ozone pollution levels produced when heat and sunlight come into contact with pollutants from power plants, cars, refineries and other sources.

The lung association also studied short-term and year-round levels of particle pollution, which is made up of a mix of tiny solid and liquid particles in the air.

___

On the Net:

American Lung Association of California, Home | American Lung Association in California (http://www.californialung.org)

State of the Air 2009, State of the Air: 2009 Report -- American Lung Association (http://www.stateoftheair.org)

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_re_us/polluted_cities)

[ELVIS]

Owning Elvis and Jesus Christ in one thread.



Whatever dude...

God doesn't give us more than we can handle, and he knows everything about man and what we will do to this planet, or what we will do on this planet...

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean there isn't one...


:elvis:

[binnie]

Didn't God send a big flood last time man became too materialistic, greedy, beligerant and selfish?

Your really name isn't Noah by any chance?

[Seshmeister]

Whatever dude...

God doesn't give us more than we can handle, and he knows everything about man and what we will do to this planet, or what we will do on this planet...

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean there isn't one...


:elvis:

Just because you are projecting things which are unknowable onto this god doesn't make them true.
How do you know he isn't the god of the wibblefucks, a type of sentient cockroach which will evolve and take over the earth after your lot destroy it.

He was happy enough to wipe out the dinosaurs why not the humans?

This fatalistic modification of christian mumbo jumbo is just a pathetic excuse to yourselves so that you can pretend that you can continue to do what the fuck you like without any consequences.

[Nickdfresh]

I want to see a real debate!

Let the American People decide!


:elvis:

Sure, right after we debate if gravity exists or not...

[Nickdfresh]

Increasing the price of electricity by fifty percent doesn't affect the middle class?

Where exactly are these numbers from?

[ELVIS]

This fatalistic modification of christian mumbo jumbo is just a pathetic excuse to yourselves so that you can pretend that you can continue to do what the fuck you like without any consequences.

No it isn't...

It makes a real believer much more aware of consequences, the way I, and most Christians I know, see it...

[FORD]

Increasing the price of electricity by fifty percent doesn't affect the middle class?

Most of the price increases in electricity can be attributed directly to greed (see ENRON).

A prime example of why utilities should never be privatized.

[FORD]

God is an environmentalist......

And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. - Revelation 11:18

[LoungeMachine]

Whatever dude...

God doesn't give us more than we can handle, and he knows everything about man and what we will do to this planet, or what we will do on this planet...

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean there isn't one...


:elvis:

Umm,,,,,,,

Just because you believe there is one, doesn't mean it exists, either.

Careful with your "logic", it tends to bite you back.

:gulp:

[Nitro Express]

They say that every lie has a small grain of truth to it.

In GAR's case, this means that he probably uses recycled drain oil as a lube when he's taking it up the ass in the truck stop glory hole. :anal:

Sounds fun. Where is this truck stop?

[scamper]

Where exactly are these numbers from?

The energy bill in debate will require elec companies to buy credits from greener companies. Trickle down costs. Seriously? Green credits? WTF?

[Big Train]

By NOAKI SCHWARTZ, Associated Press Writer Noaki Schwartz, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 29, 3:02 am ET
LOS ANGELES – Sixty percent of Americans live in areas with unhealthy air pollution levels, despite a growing green movement and more stringent laws aimed at improving air quality, the American Lung Association said in a report released Wednesday.

[/URL]

This may make me a hypocrite in some people's eyes, but I am for the reduction of air pollution and always have been. On the grounds of BREATHING and general health. At the same time, I remain unsold on global warming.

Alternative energy is useful for the causes of national defense and a cleaner country. For those reasons, I remain for it. For the fear mongering Cheney would say touche too, "Global Warming", I remain against until the science is cleared up, which it is not and those advocating remain to scared to discuss.

[Nickdfresh]

The energy bill in debate will require elec companies to buy credits from greener companies. Trickle down costs. Seriously? Green credits? WTF?

You didn't answer my question...

And once more of the greener energy infrastructure in built up, it may become much cheaper in the long run...