You gotta turn on C-Span...

[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.



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 :.

[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=0x6 b8ab6&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=0x6 b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

[LoungeMachine]

Michelle Bachmann is an absolute moron.



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 :.

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.

[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...