The Al Gore Thread: 'Former Vice-Presidential' Edition

[chaseter]

yeah, I was thinking about that the other day.
since most scientists now are admitting that Global Warming is kinda important and real I wonder what the dudes from South Park are going to say now.
:D
Whatever it is, it will be hilarious.:woot:

[Memphis Slim]

Celebs Who Claim They're Green but Guzzle Gas



Hybrid cars are all the rage in Hollywood. Celebrities drive them like they're a badge of honor. You save a few gallons of gas, you save the planet. Right? Well, not when you hop on a private jet and burn enough fuel to propel NASCAR through 2050.

Of course, the stars need to go here and there. The location shoots, the fabulous vacations, etc. But that's why God created United Airlines. G-IV's, on the other hand, were created in the image of precious celebs.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/julia_2_bg.jpg
Julia Roberts

On the ground: Roberts drives a Prius, which gets (at best) 60 miles to the gallon, shaving 30 miles off a normal car's mpg.
In the air: Chicago/LA, 1,749 miles in a private jet, the route she took with Rupert Everett while shooting "My Best Friend's Wedding."
Gas guzzled: 2,100 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius Penance: Julia would have to drive 30,000 miles, or roughly once around the earth and then some to even out her consumption in the air.
So Julia says: No word yet from Julia's rep.


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/j_lo_bg.jpg
Jennifer Lopez

On the ground: J-Lo tools around in her 60 miles-per-gallon Prius.
In the air: LA /New York, 2,475 miles in a private jet. Lopez was actually sued by a private jet company for allegedly skipping out on the bill, though she says it's all a misunderstanding and she was not supposed to be billed.
Gas guzzled: 2,750 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius penance: She'd have to drive 45,000 miles, and that's a lot longer for Jenny than just going down the block. It's actually more like twice around the earth.
So Jennifer says: There was no comment from Lopez's rep.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/clooney_2.jpg
George Clooney

On the ground: George favors a Tango, an electric car that gets a whopping 135 miles to the charge.
In the air: Los Angeles/Tokyo, 5500 miles in a private jet.
Gas guzzled: 7,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Electric shocker: Even with his super-saver Tango, he'll have to drive over 57 oceans -- Pacific Oceans to break even.
So George says: Clooney's rep, publicist Stan Rosenfield, tells TMZ, "You clearly have no understanding of certain people's need for private transport," and points out that Clooney often has "no control" over his travel schedule.


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/pitt_jet_2.jpg
Brad Pitt

On the ground: Eco-champ Brad is yet another Prius-lover, and he reportedly has several hybrids in his stable.
In the air: Los Angeles/Namibia, 9,400 miles in a private jet.
Gas guzzled: 11,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius penance: Brad burned enough fuel to take a Prius to the moon.
So Brad says: Pitt didn't have any comment. His rep tells TMZ that Pitt is out of the country.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/leo_prius.jpg
And the true-blue Green Award goes to ... Leo DiCaprio.

On the ground: Leo drives a Toyota Prius
In the air: Leo flies just like us folk -- commercial, unless he positively must fly private because of scheduling.
Prius penance: None.


:woot: :woot:

ALL DICIPLES OF AL B GORE.

[chaseter]

^Celebrities are douche baggeries anyways.

[jaguarr]

Mmmm....imagine how wasteful the celebs who AREN'T green-friendly and who are big supporters of Bush are when it comes to energy consumption. :)

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL, poor Celldog is mad he'll never be famous :(
must be soooo frustrating.

[PhotoJones]

Celebs Who Claim They're Green but Guzzle Gas



Hybrid cars are all the rage in Hollywood. Celebrities drive them like they're a badge of honor. You save a few gallons of gas, you save the planet. Right? Well, not when you hop on a private jet and burn enough fuel to propel NASCAR through 2050.

Of course, the stars need to go here and there. The location shoots, the fabulous vacations, etc. But that's why God created United Airlines. G-IV's, on the other hand, were created in the image of precious celebs.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/julia_2_bg.jpg
Julia Roberts

On the ground: Roberts drives a Prius, which gets (at best) 60 miles to the gallon, shaving 30 miles off a normal car's mpg.
In the air: Chicago/LA, 1,749 miles in a private jet, the route she took with Rupert Everett while shooting "My Best Friend's Wedding."
Gas guzzled: 2,100 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius Penance: Julia would have to drive 30,000 miles, or roughly once around the earth and then some to even out her consumption in the air.
So Julia says: No word yet from Julia's rep.


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/j_lo_bg.jpg
Jennifer Lopez

On the ground: J-Lo tools around in her 60 miles-per-gallon Prius.
In the air: LA /New York, 2,475 miles in a private jet. Lopez was actually sued by a private jet company for allegedly skipping out on the bill, though she says it's all a misunderstanding and she was not supposed to be billed.
Gas guzzled: 2,750 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius penance: She'd have to drive 45,000 miles, and that's a lot longer for Jenny than just going down the block. It's actually more like twice around the earth.
So Jennifer says: There was no comment from Lopez's rep.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/clooney_2.jpg
George Clooney

On the ground: George favors a Tango, an electric car that gets a whopping 135 miles to the charge.
In the air: Los Angeles/Tokyo, 5500 miles in a private jet.
Gas guzzled: 7,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Electric shocker: Even with his super-saver Tango, he'll have to drive over 57 oceans -- Pacific Oceans to break even.
So George says: Clooney's rep, publicist Stan Rosenfield, tells TMZ, "You clearly have no understanding of certain people's need for private transport," and points out that Clooney often has "no control" over his travel schedule.


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/pitt_jet_2.jpg
Brad Pitt

On the ground: Eco-champ Brad is yet another Prius-lover, and he reportedly has several hybrids in his stable.
In the air: Los Angeles/Namibia, 9,400 miles in a private jet.
Gas guzzled: 11,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius penance: Brad burned enough fuel to take a Prius to the moon.
So Brad says: Pitt didn't have any comment. His rep tells TMZ that Pitt is out of the country.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/leo_prius.jpg
And the true-blue Green Award goes to ... Leo DiCaprio.

On the ground: Leo drives a Toyota Prius
In the air: Leo flies just like us folk -- commercial, unless he positively must fly private because of scheduling.
Prius penance: None.


:woot: :woot:

ALL DICIPLES OF AL B GORE.

so basically what you're saying is that if you've ever had to fly anywhere, you're a hypocrite and can no longer be concerned about the environment?

[Addendum]

I don't give a **** about celebrities

[heypapajinx]

wakka wakka wakka!!
just WAIT til we all become zombies and have to eat eachother...

[Darren Daring]

So all the Hollywood liberal pansies can quit kissing his anus so hard...oh wait, they've probably got similar utility bills.

I'd probably be more inclined to read the article if you weren't so clearly biased about it.

[Addendum]

And it's kinda funny seeing the neo-con fail to say why it's so wrong to want to leave this ****ing planet better than we found it for the future useless generations

[Darren Daring]

Where'd they say that?

[Addendum]

They don't. That's my point.

[heypapajinx]

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT EVERYONE IS BLATHERING ABOUT!!
THE WORLD IS ENDING IN 2012!!!!
look into it.:o

[Addendum]

No it won't. There's plenty of people that engage in magickal masturbation rituals.

They'll jerk the world to safety

[heypapajinx]

No it won't. There's plenty of people that engage in magickal masturbation rituals.

They'll jerk the world to safety
the Spanish stole the furture of the Aztecs... they'll be coming to steal it back.

[Darren Daring]

They don't. That's my point.

They don't say why it's wrong, but in order to fail to say why, they have to had said that it was wrong in the first place. That was the where I was asking.

[Addendum]

they'll be coming to steal it back

I keep forgetting that Central America is hosting the 2012 Five Knuckle Olympics.

[heypapajinx]

I keep forgetting that Central America is hosting the 2012 Five Knuckle Olympics.
break out your rulers everybody...
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e109/heypapajinx/ruler.jpg
it's time to play.
*puts Eye of the Tiger Rocky song on repeat til 2012*

[Memphis Slim]

THE HEAT IS ON
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit

Posted: March 2, 2007
4:13 p.m. Eastern





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/goremansion.jpg
Al Gore's (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528#) Nashville mansion (PajamasMedia.com (http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/al_gores_house.php))

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html).
Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528#)".


Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.
Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.
"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."
As WND reported (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450), Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/), citing data from the Nashville Electric Service. The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.



Well Well well.................:whatever: ol' AL B Gore is pretty slick. :woot:

[Addendum]

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/602/602__image_09.jpg

[Kritish]

And it's kinda funny seeing the neo-con fail to say why it's so wrong to want to leave this ****ing planet better than we found it for the future useless generations

That's because they'd rather drive their Hummers than drive a Prius. There's two different kinds of logic, neo-con and real. Conservatives are ****ing idiots.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT EVERYONE IS BLATHERING ABOUT!!
THE WORLD IS ENDING IN 2012!!!!
look into it.:o

You do know that the Mayans also thought that the sun needed to have human blood spilt in its name every day or it wouldn't rise in the morning?
The Mayans have no credibility with me.

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL, Celldog is really bad at facing facts isn't he?

[PhotoJones]

LOL, Celldog is really bad at facing facts isn't he?

you're just know starting to realize this?

[Mr Sparkle]

You do know that the Mayans also thought that the sun needed to have human blood spilt in its name every day or it wouldn't rise in the morning?
The Mayans have no credibility with me.

I'm not sure they are concerned.

[Mr Sparkle]

you're just know starting to realize this?

nah, it's just that given the fact that the source for his stories has been proven bunk and yet he keeps posting and highlighting and adding smileys.
it just has a special kind of pathos.

[PhotoJones]

nah, it's just that given the fact that the source for his stories has been proven bunk and yet he keeps posting and highlighting and adding smileys.
it just has a special kind of pathos.

i can understand that.

[Kritish]

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/602/602__image_09.jpg

Great picture, South Park rocks.

nah, it's just that given the fact that the source for his stories has been proven bunk and yet he keeps posting and highlighting and adding smileys.
it just has a special kind of pathos.

He's just like Rush Limbaugh, neither of them let the facts get in their ways.

[Mr Sparkle]

i can understand that.
it's really pathetic in this instance.

[PhotoJones]

it's really pathetic in this instance.

it's always pretty pathetic, but i see what you mean. :up:

[Kritish]

I always get a kick out of Celldog's stupid claims. He's like a right-wing Michael Moore.

[Addendum]

Only difference is, when you laugh at Michael Moore it's because he told a joke.

With Celldog, you laugh at him because he is a joke

[PhotoJones]

i think at this point, if celldog comes out and actually admits to being celldog, i'll stop making fun of him.

[CrAzYMoFo]

I saw An Inconvenient Truth a couple of days ago. Did anyone else notice that Al Gore drives a Cadillac Escalade which gets about 9 mpg?

[Mr Sparkle]

yes, this makes Global Warming a lie.
it's the Hollywood types that want you to spend money and stuff.

[ScottyBBadd]

Celebs Who Claim They're Green but Guzzle Gas



Hybrid cars are all the rage in Hollywood. Celebrities drive them like they're a badge of honor. You save a few gallons of gas, you save the planet. Right? Well, not when you hop on a private jet and burn enough fuel to propel NASCAR through 2050.

Of course, the stars need to go here and there. The location shoots, the fabulous vacations, etc. But that's why God created United Airlines. G-IV's, on the other hand, were created in the image of precious celebs.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/julia_2_bg.jpg
Julia Roberts

On the ground: Roberts drives a Prius, which gets (at best) 60 miles to the gallon, shaving 30 miles off a normal car's mpg.
In the air: Chicago/LA, 1,749 miles in a private jet, the route she took with Rupert Everett while shooting "My Best Friend's Wedding."
Gas guzzled: 2,100 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius Penance: Julia would have to drive 30,000 miles, or roughly once around the earth and then some to even out her consumption in the air.
So Julia says: No word yet from Julia's rep.


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/j_lo_bg.jpg
Jennifer Lopez

On the ground: J-Lo tools around in her 60 miles-per-gallon Prius.
In the air: LA /New York, 2,475 miles in a private jet. Lopez was actually sued by a private jet company for allegedly skipping out on the bill, though she says it's all a misunderstanding and she was not supposed to be billed.
Gas guzzled: 2,750 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius penance: She'd have to drive 45,000 miles, and that's a lot longer for Jenny than just going down the block. It's actually more like twice around the earth.
So Jennifer says: There was no comment from Lopez's rep.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/clooney_2.jpg
George Clooney

On the ground: George favors a Tango, an electric car that gets a whopping 135 miles to the charge.
In the air: Los Angeles/Tokyo, 5500 miles in a private jet.
Gas guzzled: 7,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Electric shocker: Even with his super-saver Tango, he'll have to drive over 57 oceans -- Pacific Oceans to break even.
So George says: Clooney's rep, publicist Stan Rosenfield, tells TMZ, "You clearly have no understanding of certain people's need for private transport," and points out that Clooney often has "no control" over his travel schedule.


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/pitt_jet_2.jpg
Brad Pitt

On the ground: Eco-champ Brad is yet another Prius-lover, and he reportedly has several hybrids in his stable.
In the air: Los Angeles/Namibia, 9,400 miles in a private jet.
Gas guzzled: 11,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius penance: Brad burned enough fuel to take a Prius to the moon.
So Brad says: Pitt didn't have any comment. His rep tells TMZ that Pitt is out of the country.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/leo_prius.jpg
And the true-blue Green Award goes to ... Leo DiCaprio.

On the ground: Leo drives a Toyota Prius
In the air: Leo flies just like us folk -- commercial, unless he positively must fly private because of scheduling.
Prius penance: None.


:woot: :woot:

ALL DICIPLES OF AL B GORE.

There you go. There is the Hollywood Elite for you.

[ScottyBBadd]

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT EVERYONE IS BLATHERING ABOUT!!
THE WORLD IS ENDING IN 2012!!!!
look into it.:o

I have seen the theroies. That may just be the truest statement mentioned in this thread, yet. I totally forgot about it. And when the world ends in 2012, it won't be because of global warming.

[ScottyBBadd]

I saw An Inconvenient Truth a couple of days ago. Did anyone else notice that Al Gore drives a Cadillac Escalade which gets about 9 mpg?

Where is his hybrid? You still trust the messanger. Sinewave, love the sig. Your drinking is great.

[Mr Sparkle]

I don't get it?
when people fly commercial airlines pixies lift the airplanes into the sky or what?
is jet fuel NOT used by commercial airlines?
:confused:
and both Celldog and Scotty are sad because they Literally ignore everything that doesn't fit into their view, which is more than a little hypocritical. :csad:

[PhotoJones]

I don't get it?
when people fly commercial airlines pixies lift the airplanes into the sky or what?
is jet fuel NOT used by commercial airlines?
:confused:
and both Celldog and Scotty are sad because they Literally ignore everything that doesn't fit into their view, which is more than a little hypocritical. :csad:

scotty's actually worse than celldog in this sense. celldog'll at least offer up some kind of neo-con rhetoric, while scotty'll just keep posting the same "well i refuse to accept, blah blah blah..." over and over.

[Addendum]

There you go. There is the Hollywood Elite for you.

There are people who actually pay attention to what celebrities do?

[Darthphere]

So wait, people fly in air planes? WTF?

[Kritish]

This thread is just proving how retarded conservatives are. Gore is a hypocrite so global warming is false. :whatever:

[Addendum]

Hence the South Park picture of beating a dead horse.

[chaseter]

I consider myself conservative on many issues...but to think global warming isn't real...what are you people smoking???

[SacredGod~108]

I have lost my mind. I can't believe people in this thread are still debating the credibility of anyone saying Global Warming is an actual threat. It's a scientific fact. Not a theory. There is physical evidence. Why turn a blind eye to something so serious?

Ah, pardon me. Ignorance is bliss.

[Kritish]

I have lost my mind. I can't believe people in this thread are still debating the credibility of anyone saying Global Warming is an actual threat. It's a scientific fact. Not a theory. There is physical evidence. Why turn a blind eye to something so serious?

Ah, pardon me. Ignorance is bliss.

I wouldn't call it a scientific fact yet, but you need to watch out when 99% of scientists are telling us that it's real. There's no such thing as a scientific fact in science, but things like evolution are called "scientific laws".

[ScottyBBadd]

THE HEAT IS ON
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit

Posted: March 2, 2007
4:13 p.m. Eastern





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/goremansion.jpg
Al Gore's (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528#) Nashville mansion (PajamasMedia.com (http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/al_gores_house.php))

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html).
Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528#)".


Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.
Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.
"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."
As WND reported (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450), Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/), citing data from the Nashville Electric Service. The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.



Well Well well.................:whatever: ol' AL B Gore is pretty slick. :woot:


Wow. Slick indeed.

[M@ssEffect]

I wouldn't call it a scientific fact yet, but you need to watch out when 99% of scientists are telling us that it's real. There's no such thing as a scientific fact in science, but things like evolution are called "scientific laws". Ok Pardon me. It's a Scientific -Truth-. Does that work better? There really is no other way to avoid it. Global Warming is a truth. What can you really say about it? Why deny it o_o.

[ScottyBBadd]

Celldog and Scotty are sad because they Literally ignore everything that doesn't fit into their view, which is more than a little hypocritical. :csad:

And you don't ignore what does not fit into your liberal agenda. I say let's see some unbiased info. You are screaming the sky is falling. I saw I am not so sure.

[ScottyBBadd]

There are people who actually pay attention to what celebrities do?

You would be surprised.

[ScottyBBadd]

I have lost my mind. I can't believe people in this thread are still debating the credibility of anyone saying Global Warming is an actual threat. It's a scientific fact. Not a theory. There is physical evidence. Why turn a blind eye to something so serious?

Ah, pardon me. Ignorance is bliss.

Fact is proven. When was this proven.

[PhotoJones]

And you don't ignore what does not fit into your liberal agenda. I say let's see some unbiased info. You are screaming the sky is falling. I saw I am not so sure.

it's been layed out time and time again in this thread. if you can't/won't comprehend that, it's no one's fault but your own.

[Mr Sparkle]

And you don't ignore what does not fit into your liberal agenda. I say let's see some unbiased info. You are screaming the sky is falling. I saw I am not so sure.

:o the article you quoted 2 posts ago quotes an organization that takes money from oil concerns and conservative organizations.
that's not unbiased.
recently the scientific community for the most part, agreed that the impact of global warming is undeniable and also vastly affected by humans.
I'm not screaming the sky is falling.
sadly enough, by the time evidence is so readily apparent that even you will have to agree the situation will be even harder to contain.
nothing, not a thing you have presented or Celldog for that matter has disproved the Global warming theory.
in fact, the only link you provided I easily disproved.


enjoy your ignorance.

[ScottyBBadd]

:o the article you quoted 2 posts ago quotes an organization that takes money from oil concerns and conservative organizations.
that's not unbiased.
recently the scientific community for the most part, agreed that the impact of global warming is undeniable and also vastly affected by humans.
I'm not screaming the sky is falling.
sadly enough, by the time evidence is so readily apparent that even you will have to agree the situation will be even harder to contain.
nothing, not a thing you have presented or Celldog for that matter has disproved the Global warming theory.
in fact, the only link you provided I easily disproved.


enjoy your ignorance.

Enjoy your ultimate defeat. You can not convert me. You had no reply on how Al Gore is making money on his Global Warming warnings. There is an Inconvienent Truth.

[PhotoJones]

Enjoy your ultimate defeat. You can not convert me.

you've defeated yourself.

[ScottyBBadd]

you've defeated yourself.

But I am not converted. The real true liberal agenda.

[sinewave]

But I am not converted. The real true liberal agenda.

yet another conservative buzz term.

[ScottyBBadd]

yet another conservative buzz term.

And yet there is no middle ground, another liberal trait.

[sinewave]

oh there's middle ground alright. you don't see me questioning hippy-hunter or tomahawk53's beliefs or voting practices, do you? no, because they're self-proclaimed moderates, and i believe them when they say that because they're not pretending to be in the middle while soley supporting conservative ideals.

[Superman]

Are the neo-cons still trying to make something out of nothing? Jeez these people need to get over it already.:whatever:

[bulok]

That there is global warming is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The contention is in global warming attributed to human activities.

There are still scientists out there who are unsure as to the cause of global warming. Some of them believe it's just a natural cycle that our planet goes through etc.

I think the purpose of this thread is just to show what a money-grubbing hypocrite Al Gore is and how he's no better than the "war for oil" that Bush is. They're all douches.

[Spider-Bite]

Celebs Who Claim They're Green but Guzzle Gas



Hybrid cars are all the rage in Hollywood. Celebrities drive them like they're a badge of honor. You save a few gallons of gas, you save the planet. Right? Well, not when you hop on a private jet and burn enough fuel to propel NASCAR through 2050.

Of course, the stars need to go here and there. The location shoots, the fabulous vacations, etc. But that's why God created United Airlines. G-IV's, on the other hand, were created in the image of precious celebs.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/julia_2_bg.jpg
Julia Roberts

On the ground: Roberts drives a Prius, which gets (at best) 60 miles to the gallon, shaving 30 miles off a normal car's mpg.
In the air: Chicago/LA, 1,749 miles in a private jet, the route she took with Rupert Everett while shooting "My Best Friend's Wedding."
Gas guzzled: 2,100 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius Penance: Julia would have to drive 30,000 miles, or roughly once around the earth and then some to even out her consumption in the air.
So Julia says: No word yet from Julia's rep.


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/j_lo_bg.jpg
Jennifer Lopez

On the ground: J-Lo tools around in her 60 miles-per-gallon Prius.
In the air: LA /New York, 2,475 miles in a private jet. Lopez was actually sued by a private jet company for allegedly skipping out on the bill, though she says it's all a misunderstanding and she was not supposed to be billed.
Gas guzzled: 2,750 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius penance: She'd have to drive 45,000 miles, and that's a lot longer for Jenny than just going down the block. It's actually more like twice around the earth.
So Jennifer says: There was no comment from Lopez's rep.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/clooney_2.jpg
George Clooney

On the ground: George favors a Tango, an electric car that gets a whopping 135 miles to the charge.
In the air: Los Angeles/Tokyo, 5500 miles in a private jet.
Gas guzzled: 7,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Electric shocker: Even with his super-saver Tango, he'll have to drive over 57 oceans -- Pacific Oceans to break even.
So George says: Clooney's rep, publicist Stan Rosenfield, tells TMZ, "You clearly have no understanding of certain people's need for private transport," and points out that Clooney often has "no control" over his travel schedule.


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/pitt_jet_2.jpg
Brad Pitt

On the ground: Eco-champ Brad is yet another Prius-lover, and he reportedly has several hybrids in his stable.
In the air: Los Angeles/Namibia, 9,400 miles in a private jet.
Gas guzzled: 11,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Prius penance: Brad burned enough fuel to take a Prius to the moon.
So Brad says: Pitt didn't have any comment. His rep tells TMZ that Pitt is out of the country.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/10/leo_prius.jpg
And the true-blue Green Award goes to ... Leo DiCaprio.

On the ground: Leo drives a Toyota Prius
In the air: Leo flies just like us folk -- commercial, unless he positively must fly private because of scheduling.
Prius penance: None.


:woot: :woot:

ALL DICIPLES OF AL B GORE.

you have to give them credit. When a celebrity takes a political stance they are taking the risk of turning off fans or would be fans who disagree with them.
But they do it anyways, and it might help increase the chances of stronger environmental laws being passed which will actually make a difference, where as even if every celebrity on the planet never flew again outside of a commerical airline, the rate at which the earth is warming would not change even remotely a little bit.

They do one thing that has no effect at all, which is flying solo, and people use that to bash them for doing something which actually will have an effect, speaking out.

[Paradoxium]

That there is global warming is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The contention is in global warming attributed to human activities.

There are still scientists out there who are unsure as to the cause of global warming. Some of them believe it's just a natural cycle that our planet goes through etc.

I bet we humans are also responsible for the Global Warming on Mars (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html) and Jupiter (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html) right?

Well since we are all concerned by global warming, and since green house gas is 95% water vapor, I advocate as an "environmentalist" we all stop taking warm showers. On top of that, we should cut down every rainforest on this planet*, and dump a ton of iron sulfate into the oceans (although this would create the next ice age, but freezing everyone to death is small price to ensure our continuity!). Anyone with me? Come on... lets get dirty, cut some rainforests and commit planetary genocide!


* The rate of decay of rainforests consumes a surplus of oxygen.

[Addendum]

Because it's much easier to make the planet into a parking lot, rather than actually do our best to leave it better for future generations, EVEN IF humanity has no effect on the environment

[Paradoxium]

Because it's much easier to make the planet into a parking lot, rather than actually do our best to leave it better for future generations, EVEN IF humanity has no effect on the environment

...and what if we are misled into doing unnecessary damage to our current generation AND the ones after?

Instead of investing money into something we have no effect on (intellectually and morally bankrupt scientists and politicians), maybe we can invest money on things that will help humanity prosper and adapt. Crazy idea isn't it? :wow:

While people incessantly whine about doomsday and the problems of this planet, there are people out there making more energy efficient and clean products. Maybe if you want to help the planet, you should start taking engineering courses or form businesses to encourage the growth and development of these devices. Far more productive than going on retarded hippy parade, signing petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide and making Al Gore rich and famous.

[ScottyBBadd]

Are the neo-cons still trying to make something out of nothing? Jeez these people need to get over it already.:whatever:

That is my point. This is an issue that won't present itself to us in our lifetime.

[ScottyBBadd]

I bet we humans are also responsible for the Global Warming on Mars (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html) and Jupiter (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html) right?

If there were global warming on Mars, we could colonize it.

[Addendum]

I don't do the protests or petitions. I have something called "a job so I can pay my bills"

However, I do consider scientists who have spent years studying their field of research to be smarter than some political hack that hosts a radio show, whose research is done by someone else during commercial breaks.

I wouldn't mind seeing businesses that are on waterfronts, and use that water to power their business and create whatever, have their water intake be downstream of the water output.

[Addendum]

How is conservation harmful to the environment?

[ScottyBBadd]

I wouldn't mind seeing businesses that are on waterfronts, and use that water to power their business and create whatever, have their water intake be downstream of the water output.

It is a good idea, in theroy. However the cost of this technology must be considered.

[Addendum]

Cost of what technology

[Paradoxium]

That's the problem isn't it? The tax we all pay are not being well/efficiently spent (what's new?). The last thing we need is to add another one to the list. I advocate that individuals who want to make a different not merely throw money at the problem, but do something of substance. Go into engineering or start a business relevant to energy. How cool would it be if cold fusion ever became reality? Even if Global warming is not true, people still stand to benefit in something cheap and energy efficient. You have nothing to lose!

Here's more news on the GLOBAL WARMING OF MARS

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

[Addendum]

I'm sure that article on global warming on Mars is a big deal to the Martians.

And I have no intention of going back to college. I already enough student loans to pay off. I don't need any more

[Paradoxium]

But we are causing the global warming on Mars can't you see!!! LOL. What will Martian Manhunter think :(

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/DefectiveGlobalWarming.pdf
Why is the albedo of Venus important? When the albedo is at 0.80, the Global Warming Theory falls apart. . .

The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?


BTW, you don't need a degree to start a business.

[Addendum]

The other planets are meaningless to me, aside from those really cool space pictures that make killer backgrounds for my computer.

Until humanity actually resides on those planets, my strong Earth-bias for news remains intact

[ScottyBBadd]

Go figure.

[ScottyBBadd]

The other planets are meaningless to me, aside from those really cool space pictures that make killer backgrounds for my computer.

Mine too. The theroies of global warming could also be used in the terraforming of Mars.

[Addendum]

BTW, you don't need a degree to start a business.

Why would I want to start one?

[Mr Sparkle]

I bet we humans are also responsible for the Global Warming on Mars (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html) and Jupiter (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html) right?

no.


Well since we are all concerned by global warming, and since green house gas is 95% water vapor, I advocate as an "environmentalist" we all stop taking warm showers. On top of that, we should cut down every rainforest on this planet*, and dump a ton of iron sulfate into the oceans (although this would create the next ice age, but freezing everyone to death is small price to ensure our continuity!). Anyone with me? Come on... lets get dirty, cut some rainforests and commit planetary genocide!
* The rate of decay of rainforests consumes a surplus of oxygen.

you have no argument so you go to complete extremes to make the point you are opossing sound wrong?
thanks for your non-contribution. :up:

...and what if we are misled into doing unnecessary damage to our current generation AND the ones after?

conserving energy? using the technology available right now and developing NEW technology doesn't seem like something that would "damage our current generation" unless the options you stated above weren't jokes.

Instead of investing money into something we have no effect on (intellectually and morally bankrupt scientists and politicians), maybe we can invest money on things that will help humanity prosper and adapt. Crazy idea isn't it? :wow:

:huh: who asked you to invest money?
how would you being more energy efficient benefit these "morally bankrupt scientists and politicians"?

While people incessantly whine about doomsday and the problems of this planet, there are people out there making more energy efficient and clean products. Maybe if you want to help the planet, you should start taking engineering courses or form businesses to encourage the growth and development of these devices. Far more productive than going on retarded hippy parade, signing petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide and making Al Gore rich and famous.

again, basically you're attaching a stance or a course of action not even suggested to make the opossite stance to your point of view look weak or ill conceived.
your idea of everyone becoming engineers is idiotic and "form businesses to encourage the growth and development of these devices"
is either intentionally childish or you have absolutely no idea how scientific development works.
I don't remember anyone talking about petitions or Making AL Gore "famous"( though one would ten to believe that the former vice president who is thought by many to have had the elction stolen from him would be already quite "famous"in his own right) this thread has centered around the EXISTENCE the Global Warming and that it's more than likely that we are in fact as a race making it accelerate and have more consequences than initially thought.
then again, I'm basing my beliefs on scientific evidence and claims made by the scientific community.
that's pretty much all I can do.
unless I myself was a scientist I would look rather foolish trying to disprove a natural phenomenon of this magnitude with just a few links to rather unrelated scientific discoveries.
it would do you well to read the thread the next time around.
it strikes me as odd that a former mod wouldn't know to this in the first place, but ....go fig :huh: :down

[ScottyBBadd]

Why would I want to start one?

Why not.

[Paradoxium]

But global warming is caused by us humanz. Teh Sicientizts and IPCC (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html)* sez so!!

And since you care so much about the future generation why don't want to do something about the human caused global warming on Mars? Maybe we will conquer it one day. :D:up:

*I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

[Addendum]

Why not.

It's never been an interest of mine

[ScottyBBadd]

That's the problem isn't it? The tax we all pay are not being well/efficiently spent (what's new?). The last thing we need is to add another one to the list. I advocate that individuals who want to make a different not merely throw money at the problem, but do something of substance. Go into engineering or start a business relevant to energy. How cool would it be if cold fusion ever became reality? Even if Global warming is not true, people still stand to benefit in something cheap and energy efficient. You have nothing to lose!

Here's more news on the GLOBAL WARMING OF MARS

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

You know the liberals on this forum will not want to hear anything that they are not spouting as undisputed truth.

[Paradoxium]

That's the point, we aren't causing the global warming on Mars and Jupiter. I'm sorry I didn't mention energy conservation, I thought it was inferred. I am talking about energy conservation + innovation + adaptation. My mention of being engineers and forming businesses (to make more cheap energy efficient products) is directed at those passionate about the doom and gloom of the earth. Your energies are better directed elsewhere.

As for the morally bankrupt politicians and scientists (more particular on the former and some of the latter), its those advocacy groups and the Kyoto Accord. Canada signed one it, and they will lose like 10-15 billion dollars to hot air credits. That type of money could have been invested in R&D and better filtration systems. That's the bankruptcy I am talking about.

[Memphis Slim]

This from just a few short years ago..... :yay:


Scientists Say Antarctica Is Cooling, Not Warming
Daily Policy Digest
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Environmental Issues / Global Warming
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Monday, January 14, 2002 Parts of Antarctica have cooled sharply in recent years, according to a study published online by Nature, a British weekly science journal. The research was led by Peter Doran of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The finding punches holes in the doomsday prediction that the frozen continent faces imminent meltdown from global warming. It also counters fears that a breakup of the continent's ice cap will result in sea levels rising dramatically around the globe.


Measurements taken by weather stations in the McMurdo Dry Valleys -- the largest ice-free area in Antarctica -- show that on average this region cooled by 0.125 Fahrenheit a year between 1986 and 2000.
Scientists found the cooling was especially strong during the autumn and summer seasons, and they theorize it is due to a complex interplay between ocean currents.
The distorted view that the continent is warming might be traced to the fact that most weather monitoring stations are based in the Antarctic Peninsula -- the tongue of land projecting northward from the continent toward South America -- an area which is, indeed, warming dramatically, Doran says.He says that the Antarctic findings don't conflict with other theories of global warming, since he believes the other continents are warming.

Source: Agence France-Presse, "Cooler Antarctica Foils Meltdown Forecasts," Washington Times, January 14, 2002.

For more on Global Warming
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/ (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/)

__________________________________________________ ___________

Tree Rings Establish Temperature Fluctuations Over The Centuries Daily Policy Digest
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Environmental Issues / global warming
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Tuesday, March 26, 2002 A new study of old tree rings shows that 1,000 years ago -- long before power plants and sport utility vehicles -- temperatures across North American and Asia rose in a period of unusual warmth.


Temperatures were known to be warm in Europe between 900 and 1100 -- during what is known as the Medieval Warm Period.
Collecting wood samples in 14 locations that cover a swath of the globe from New Orleans to the top of Alaska, researchers from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Swiss Federal Research Institute found evidence that the warm temperatures extended to much of the Northern Hemisphere.
Writing in the current issue of the journal Science, scientists say the data demonstrate that temperatures naturally rise and fall over the centuries.
The peak temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are similar to those seen in the first half of the 20th century -- and that warming, many scientists contend, was induced naturally, by a brightening of the sun.The scientist add that their data do not argue against the view that artificial emissions -- so-called greenhouse gases -- have set off global warming in recent decades.

Source: Kenneth Chang, "Tree Rings Show a Period of Widespread Warming in Medieval Age," New York Times, March 26, 2002.

[Addendum]

And in a couple months, Spidey will hit movie theaters in his first ever movie

[ScottyBBadd]

That's the point, we aren't causing the global warming on Mars and Jupiter. I'm sorry I didn't mention energy conservation, I thought it was inferred. I am talking about energy conservation + innovation + adaptation. My mention of being engineers and forming businesses (to make more cheap energy efficient products) is directed at those passionate about the doom and gloom of the earth. Your energies are better directed elsewhere.

As for the morally bankrupt politicians and scientists (more particular on the former and some of the latter), its those advocacy groups and the Kyoto Accord. Off the top of my head, Canada signed one right? I heard they will lose like 10-15 billion dollars to hot air credits. That type of money could have been invested in R&D and better filtration systems. That's the bankruptcy I am talking about.

There you go. Make it more practical and cost efficent. Then you have something.

[Memphis Slim]

Scientists Say There Is No Evidence of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Daily Policy Digest
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Environmental Issues
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Thursday, November 08, 2001
Scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics say the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere due to industrial activity have caused global temperatures to rise over the past century and, if unchecked, will cause catastrophic warming is incorrect.

In a new book published by the Fraser Institute, they find:


The increased surface temperature of about 0.5°C to 0.6°C over the last one hundred years is a natural phenomenon -- because 80 percent of the rise in levels of atmospheric CO2 during the twentieth century occurred after the initial major rise in temperature.
Surface temperatures (based on land and sea measurements) peaked by around 1940, then cooled until the 1970s; since then, there has been a surface warming.
The primary impact of the greenhouse effect of added CO2 is in the lower atmosphere (rather than at the surface), but accurate measurements of that layer of air by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites over the last 22 years have not shown any hint of global warming.Concern that the continued increase in the concentration of CO2 in the air will lead to a disastrous rise in the global temperature stems mainly from computer-based simulations of the climate system.

The study shows that current models are not sufficiently accurate in forecasting future climate change. At present, it is impossible to isolate the effect of an increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 on climate.

Source: Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson, "Global Warming: A Guide to the Science," Risk Controversy Series 1, October 2001, Fraser Institute, 4th Floor 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC. V6J 3G7, Canada, (604) 688-0221.

[Darthphere]

You guys are right, there is no global warming, and using less electricity and finding alternatives to oil for your cars is a waste of time.

[ScottyBBadd]

This from just a few short years ago..... :yay:


Scientists Say Antarctica Is Cooling, Not Warming
Daily Policy Digest
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Environmental Issues / Global Warming
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Monday, January 14, 2002 Parts of Antarctica have cooled sharply in recent years, according to a study published online by Nature, a British weekly science journal. The research was led by Peter Doran of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The finding punches holes in the doomsday prediction that the frozen continent faces imminent meltdown from global warming. It also counters fears that a breakup of the continent's ice cap will result in sea levels rising dramatically around the globe.



Measurements taken by weather stations in the McMurdo Dry Valleys -- the largest ice-free area in Antarctica -- show that on average this region cooled by 0.125 Fahrenheit a year between 1986 and 2000.
Scientists found the cooling was especially strong during the autumn and summer seasons, and they theorize it is due to a complex interplay between ocean currents.
The distorted view that the continent is warming might be traced to the fact that most weather monitoring stations are based in the Antarctic Peninsula -- the tongue of land projecting northward from the continent toward South America -- an area which is, indeed, warming dramatically, Doran says.He says that the Antarctic findings don't conflict with other theories of global warming, since he believes the other continents are warming.

Source: Agence France-Presse, "Cooler Antarctica Foils Meltdown Forecasts," Washington Times, January 14, 2002.

For more on Global Warming
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/ (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/)

__________________________________________________ ___________

Tree Rings Establish Temperature Fluctuations Over The Centuries Daily Policy Digest
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Environmental Issues / global warming
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Tuesday, March 26, 2002 A new study of old tree rings shows that 1,000 years ago -- long before power plants and sport utility vehicles -- temperatures across North American and Asia rose in a period of unusual warmth.



Temperatures were known to be warm in Europe between 900 and 1100 -- during what is known as the Medieval Warm Period.
Collecting wood samples in 14 locations that cover a swath of the globe from New Orleans to the top of Alaska, researchers from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Swiss Federal Research Institute found evidence that the warm temperatures extended to much of the Northern Hemisphere.
Writing in the current issue of the journal Science, scientists say the data demonstrate that temperatures naturally rise and fall over the centuries.
The peak temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are similar to those seen in the first half of the 20th century -- and that warming, many scientists contend, was induced naturally, by a brightening of the sun.The scientist add that their data do not argue against the view that artificial emissions -- so-called greenhouse gases -- have set off global warming in recent decades.

Source: Kenneth Chang, "Tree Rings Show a Period of Widespread Warming in Medieval Age," New York Times, March 26, 2002.

A little reasonable doubt.

[ScottyBBadd]

Scientists Say There Is No Evidence of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Daily Policy Digest
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Environmental Issues
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Thursday, November 08, 2001
Scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics say the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere due to industrial activity have caused global temperatures to rise over the past century and, if unchecked, will cause catastrophic warming is incorrect.

In a new book published by the Fraser Institute, they find:



The increased surface temperature of about 0.5°C to 0.6°C over the last one hundred years is a natural phenomenon -- because 80 percent of the rise in levels of atmospheric CO2 during the twentieth century occurred after the initial major rise in temperature.
Surface temperatures (based on land and sea measurements) peaked by around 1940, then cooled until the 1970s; since then, there has been a surface warming.
The primary impact of the greenhouse effect of added CO2 is in the lower atmosphere (rather than at the surface), but accurate measurements of that layer of air by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites over the last 22 years have not shown any hint of global warming.Concern that the continued increase in the concentration of CO2 in the air will lead to a disastrous rise in the global temperature stems mainly from computer-based simulations of the climate system.

The study shows that current models are not sufficiently accurate in forecasting future climate change. At present, it is impossible to isolate the effect of an increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 on climate.

Source: Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson, "Global Warming: A Guide to the Science," Risk Controversy Series 1, October 2001, Fraser Institute, 4th Floor 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC. V6J 3G7, Canada, (604) 688-0221.

This is another reason I am just not gonna jump on the global warming bandwagon.

[Paradoxium]

Look you guys have your doubts, some of you might be on the fence. Liberal or Conservative I implore you to check this article by Mr. Lindzen a Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. This type of BS is apolitical.

Here is an excerpt:
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Nobody here is saying we should continue to buy gas guzzling SUVs, and waste as much energy as possible. You save a ton from conserving energy both environmentally and financially. Especially if you have those giant student loans. I am also quite "pro-renewable resources". I have no problems with alternatives such as biodiesel and solar.

I am optimistic of what people can do if they can put their minds to it. But I do have problems with the groups surrounding this Global warming hysteria. This article highlights some of the issues.

[ScottyBBadd]

Look you guys have your doubts, some of you might be on the fence. Liberal or Conservative I implore you to check this article by Mr. Lindzen a Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. This type of BS is apolitical.

Here is an excerpt:


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Nobody here is saying we should continue to buy gas guzzling SUVs, and waste as much energy as possible. You save a ton from conserving energy both environmentally and financially. Especially if you have those giant student loans. I am also quite "pro-renewable resources". I have no problems with alternatives such as biodiesel and solar.

I am optimistic of what people can do if they can put their minds to it. But I do have problems with the groups surrounding this Global warming hysteria. This article highlights some of the issues.

I feel the same way. Renewable resources are a good thing. Conserving energy also hits the oil companies in the wallet. Oil money could also fund terrorism. Hitting them hard. Just watch the sky is falling routine.

[Kritish]

Scientists Say There Is No Evidence of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Daily Policy Digest
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Environmental Issues
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
Thursday, November 08, 2001
Scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics say the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere due to industrial activity have caused global temperatures to rise over the past century and, if unchecked, will cause catastrophic warming is incorrect.

In a new book published by the Fraser Institute, they find:



The increased surface temperature of about 0.5°C to 0.6°C over the last one hundred years is a natural phenomenon -- because 80 percent of the rise in levels of atmospheric CO2 during the twentieth century occurred after the initial major rise in temperature.
Surface temperatures (based on land and sea measurements) peaked by around 1940, then cooled until the 1970s; since then, there has been a surface warming.
The primary impact of the greenhouse effect of added CO2 is in the lower atmosphere (rather than at the surface), but accurate measurements of that layer of air by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites over the last 22 years have not shown any hint of global warming.Concern that the continued increase in the concentration of CO2 in the air will lead to a disastrous rise in the global temperature stems mainly from computer-based simulations of the climate system.

The study shows that current models are not sufficiently accurate in forecasting future climate change. At present, it is impossible to isolate the effect of an increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 on climate.

Source: Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson, "Global Warming: A Guide to the Science," Risk Controversy Series 1, October 2001, Fraser Institute, 4th Floor 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC. V6J 3G7, Canada, (604) 688-0221.

You'll buy this bull **** created by fringe scientists but you'll ignore the other 99 percet of the scientific community?

[Spider-Bite]

I bet we humans are also responsible for the Global Warming on Mars (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html) and Jupiter (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html) right?

Well since we are all concerned by global warming, and since green house gas is 95% water vapor, I advocate as an "environmentalist" we all stop taking warm showers. On top of that, we should cut down every rainforest on this planet*, and dump a ton of iron sulfate into the oceans (although this would create the next ice age, but freezing everyone to death is small price to ensure our continuity!). Anyone with me? Come on... lets get dirty, cut some rainforests and commit planetary genocide!


* The rate of decay of rainforests consumes a surplus of oxygen.

That's got to be the stupidest post ever posted on the hype. Seriously. No joke.

[Spider-Bite]

...and what if we are misled into doing unnecessary damage to our current generation AND the ones after?

Instead of investing money into something we have no effect on (intellectually and morally bankrupt scientists and politicians), maybe we can invest money on things that will help humanity prosper and adapt. Crazy idea isn't it? :wow:

While people incessantly whine about doomsday and the problems of this planet, there are people out there making more energy efficient and clean products. Maybe if you want to help the planet, you should start taking engineering courses or form businesses to encourage the growth and development of these devices. Far more productive than going on retarded hippy parade, signing petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide and making Al Gore rich and famous.


The technology to change the way we consume energy already exists. But anybody with the money available to implement that technology, didn't get that way by looking out for their fellow man. They got that money by walking on the backs of others, and those people will do whatever is most profitable. if you want things to change it will require imposed limits to how much people can pollute, mandatory energy standards on vehicles and products produced, and social programs to promote the mass production and low pricing of alternative energies.

[Mr Sparkle]

Nobody here is saying we should continue to buy gas guzzling SUVs, and waste as much energy as possible. You save a ton from conserving energy both environmentally and financially. Especially if you have those giant student loans. I am also quite "pro-renewable resources". I have no problems with alternatives such as biodiesel and solar.

I am optimistic of what people can do if they can put their minds to it. But I do have problems with the groups surrounding this Global warming hysteria. This article highlights some of the issues.

I have more problems with groups denying it altogether.
and seeing as how no-one is doing anything right now.
( I see the same amount of SUV's with bigger badder V8's on sale)
I wouldn't label it "hysteria" at all.
I don't understand why we completely agree on the first part of your post and so violently part ways on the latter half.

[Memphis Slim]

You'll buy this bull **** created by fringe scientists but you'll ignore the other 99 percent of the scientific community?


99 percent? Can you show me some documentation on that number?? :dry:

You seem to know all the scientists and stuff....:yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

from Wikipedia so bound to have some errors, none the less seems pretty fair.

Scientists on climate change

for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)


against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us)

[Memphis Slim]

from Wikipedia so bound to have some errors, none the less seems pretty fair.

Scientists on climate change

for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)


against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us)







Oh ...you the mean the web dictionary that can be edited?????? :whatever: show me that 99 percent.

[Mr Sparkle]

Oh ...you the web dictionary that can be edited?????? :whatever: show me that 99 percent.

I didn't claim 99% and I underscored that there was bound to be some errors.
however Unlike you I read it, and it has sources and they all check out so far.

I frankly don't care what you think since I could present a website that proved to you that infact Jesus himself had come down to say that global warming was real and we all should do something about it and you'd still ask for more.

like I told scotty, this is about your innability to change and your baffling adherence to the status quo.
no more, no liberals, no conservatives, we all die the same way anyway.

enjoy your ignorance.

[Memphis Slim]

Anyway...let Mr. Kritish respond to and defend his own bold statement.

[Mr Sparkle]

only when you respond to the hundred or so questions we have posed to you so far, the ones you've ignored because you have no proof or have been proven wrong.
don't get all high and mighty about facts all of a sudden when it suits you.

[Addendum]

His radio hasn't told him what to say yet

[Memphis Slim]

I didn't claim 99% and I underscored that there was bound to be some errors.
however Unlike you I read it, and it has sources and they all check out so far.

Then why did you answer the question....or attempt to. Wasn't talking to you anyway. Right?



I frankly don't care what you think since I could present a website that proved to you that infact Jesus himself had come down to say that global warming was real and we all should do something about it and you'd still ask for more.

You frankly don't care? :woot:
You obvious care enough to keep following me all over the boards. And until Jesus actually does tell us global warming will destroy us, I guess we'll never know.


like I told scotty, this is about your innability to change and your baffling adherence to the status quo.
no more, no liberals, no conservatives, we all die the same way anyway.

enjoy your ignorance.


:woot: :woot:

LOL

[Memphis Slim]

99 percent.........show me. That's all I'm asking.

It's a simple request. :yay:

[Addendum]

You got the Hannity asshat down pat.

Now do that other comedian, Michael Savage

[Memphis Slim]

You got the Hannity asshat down pat.

Now do that other comedian, Michael Savage



You have nothing, don't you?? :yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

Then why did you answer the question....or attempt to. Wasn't talking to you anyway. Right?

seeing as how neither of my posts deal with percentages, and it's general information I wasn't "answering" your question.
I was provinding information for review of anyone interested.
simple.

You frankly don't care? :woot:
You obvious care enough to keep following me all over the boards. And until Jesus actually does tell us global warming will destroy us, I guess we'll never know.

you confuse the entertainment I get from mocking your idiocy for "care".
how very sad for you.:csad:

[Mr Sparkle]

99 percent.........show me. That's all I'm asking.

It's a simple request. :yay:

okay Celldog, you win.
it's NOT 99%

which precentage is it??
now you provide links and answers.

do it fast.
since you seemed so skeptical about it before must mean you had available some pretty strong evidence.

I look forward to your triumphant posting of it. :up:

[Addendum]

You have nothing, don't you?? :yay:

Neither do you

[Memphis Slim]

seeing as how neither of my posts deal with percentages, and it's general information I wasn't "answering" your question.
I was provinding information for review of anyone interested.
simple.

Then why comment at all? It was pretty plain that I responded to Kritish's rant about 99 percent of the scientists pronounce DOOM!

you confuse the entertainment I get from mocking your idiocy for "care".
how very sad for you.:csad:

Actually very "fun" for me. You are amusing in your weird world. :yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

weak post so far Celldog.
but nevermind that.
questions await your enlightened answers.

be swift!!!!

[Memphis Slim]

Neither do you


I got nothing to prove.........
99 percent........make a statement........give proof. Simple. :yay:

[Addendum]

I got nothing to prove.........
99 percent........make a statement........give proof. Simple. :yay:

Prove what? I've not made any claim at all, except that I'm for conservation.

This is between you and Sparkle. I'm just having a coke and a smoke

[Memphis Slim]

It's 2:45 AM ..............I'm going to bed..........good nite.

[Mr Sparkle]

okay Celldog, you win.
it's NOT 99%

which precentage is it??
now you provide links and answers.

do it fast.
since you seemed so skeptical about it before must mean you had available some pretty strong evidence.

I look forward to your triumphant posting of it. :up:

:huh::huh::huh::huh:

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL I thought so. :D

[ScottyBBadd]

like I told Scotty, this is about your innability to change and your baffling adherence to the status quo.
no more, no liberals, no conservatives, we all die the same way anyway.

More like my income telling me the status quo is all I can afford. I by myself make less in a year than Al Gore blows on his utility bill. Eco-friendly is not income friendly. I will say again, I do not own a car. I ride to work with friends, co-workers, my fiancee, or take the bus to work. I can't drop $6-$10 on a singular light bulb. Now, Mr. Sparkle, maybe you have money comming out of your ears, but I do not. I am a lowly state employee, and it is the best job I can get. You want me to embrace change. Well, make change affordable. I can't afford the extra per killowatt hour in order for my apartment to be eco-friendly. I, unlike you am on a limited income.

[Addendum]

Some minor changes can happen though.

Cable bill, internet, movies, dvd, video games...

Those aren't really necessary to live.

I'll keep my internet connection, my xbox and dvds because I'm an ******* who doesn't want to give them up

[ScottyBBadd]

Some minor changes can happen though.

Cable bill, internet, movies, dvd, video games...

Those aren't really necessary to live.

I'll keep my internet connection, my xbox and dvds because I'm an ******* who doesn't want to give them up

I can give up the X-Box, considering I don't have one. Those others not giving up. However the major changes bieng pushed, I can't do.

[PhotoJones]

More like my income telling me the status quo is all I can afford. I by myself make less in a year than Al Gore blows on his utility bill. Eco-friendly is not income friendly. I will say again, I do not own a car. I ride to work with friends, co-workers, my fiancee, or take the bus to work. I can't drop $6-$10 on a singular light bulb. Now, Mr. Sparkle, maybe you have money comming out of your ears, but I do not. I am a lowly state employee, and it is the best job I can get. You want me to embrace change. Well, make change affordable. I can't afford the extra per killowatt hour in order for my apartment to be eco-friendly. I, unlike you am on a limited income.

so now your argument for global warming not existing is because you're broke?

yikes.

we're all broke, dude. it's not easy to live "carbon neutral", and it certainly isn't cheap. i don't, and i'd be hard pressed to find someone else on the hype that actually does live like that. but that doesn't change the facts. that doesn't negate global warming. all it does is say that right now, the science of it has not yet met the average consumer half way. it will soon enough, though.

[Spider-Bite]

More like my income telling me the status quo is all I can afford. I by myself make less in a year than Al Gore blows on his utility bill. Eco-friendly is not income friendly. I will say again, I do not own a car. I ride to work with friends, co-workers, my fiancee, or take the bus to work. I can't drop $6-$10 on a singular light bulb. Now, Mr. Sparkle, maybe you have money comming out of your ears, but I do not. I am a lowly state employee, and it is the best job I can get. You want me to embrace change. Well, make change affordable. I can't afford the extra per killowatt hour in order for my apartment to be eco-friendly. I, unlike you am on a limited income.

Were trying to make changes but voters like you wont give the democrats enough power to make the changes. The more expensive light bulbs that use less energy last a lot longer in the long run, so you get your money back, plus you save money on your electric bill. So it's actually cheaper to get the energy efficent light bulbs.

[Memphis Slim]

More like my income telling me the status quo is all I can afford. I by myself make less in a year than Al Gore blows on his utility bill. Eco-friendly is not income friendly. I will say again, I do not own a car. I ride to work with friends, co-workers, my fiancee, or take the bus to work. I can't drop $6-$10 on a singular light bulb. Now, Mr. Sparkle, maybe you have money comming out of your ears, but I do not. I am a lowly state employee, and it is the best job I can get. You want me to embrace change. Well, make change affordable. I can't afford the extra per killowatt hour in order for my apartment to be eco-friendly. I, unlike you am on a limited income.


Did you know that those "special" bulbs were made with the enviromentally friend element called ......"drum roll pleez".................................................. .................................................. ...................................


MERCURY!!! :wow:

So you can't just throw them in the trash. You gotta take 'em to a special place. Nice....:yay:

[Memphis Slim]

CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury
(Talk about an Inconvience) :woot:

http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2007/feb/cfl/cflstandard.jpg


February 15, 2007 · The Environmental Protection Agency and some large business, including Wal-Mart, are aggressively promoting the sale of compact fluorescent light bulbs as a way to save energy and fight global warming. They want Americans to buy many millions of them over the coming years.
But the bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, a neurotoxin, and the companies and federal government haven't come up with effective ways to get Americans to recycle them.
"The problem with the bulbs is that they'll break before they get to the landfill. They'll break in containers, or they'll break in a dumpster or they'll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens," says John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America, the trade group for the people who handle trash and recycling.
Skinner says when bulbs break near homes, they can contaminate the soil.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, and it's especially dangerous for children and fetuses. Most exposure to mercury comes from eating fish contaminated with mercury,
Some states, cities and counties have outlawed putting CFL bulbs in the trash, but in most state the practice is legal.
Pete Keller works for Eco Lights Northwest, the only company in Washington State that recycles fluorescent lamps. He says it is illegal to put the bulbs in the trash in some counties in Washington, but most people still throw them out.
"I think most people do want to recycle, but if it's not made easy, it doesn't happen," Keller says. "And they're small enough to fit in a trash can. So by nature, I think most people are not recyclers. So if it's small enough to fit in a trash can, that's where it ends up."
Experts agree that it's not easy for most people to recycle these bulbs. Even cities that have curbside recycling won't take the bulbs. So people have to take them to a hazardous-waste collection day or a special facility.
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency program concedes that not enough has been done to urge people to recycle CFL bulbs and make it easier for them to do so.
"I share your frustration that there isn't a national infrastructure for the proper recycling of this product," says Wendy Reed, who manages EPA's Energy Star program. That programs gives the compact bulbs its "energy star" seal of approval.
She says that even though fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, using them contributes less mercury to the environment than using regular incandescent bulbs. That's because they use less electricity — and coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions in the air.
"The compact fluorescent light bulb is a product people can use to positively influence the environment to… prevent mercury emissions as well as greenhouse gas emissions. And it's something that we can do now — and it's extremely important that we do do it," Reed says. "And the positive message is, if you recycle them, if you dispose of them properly, then they're doing a world of good."
Reed says the agency has been urging stores that sell the bulbs to help recycle them.
"EPA is actively engaged with trying to find a solution that works for these retailers around recycling the product, because it's really, really important," Reed says.
But so far, she says the biggest sellers of the bulbs haven't stepped up to the plate.
"The only retailer that I know of that is recycling is IKEA," she says, referring to the Swedish-owned furniture chain store.
Reed says the EPA has been prodding other retailers, such as Wal-Mart, to do more.
"We are working with Wal-Mart on it, we are making some progress. But no commitments have been made on the part of Wal-Mart," she says.
Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for a comment on the issue.
EPA also has asked retailers to sell the lower mercury compact bulbs that some manufacturers are making. Engineers say you can't cut mercury out completely.
Some other big companies have started paying attention to the recycling problem.
General Electric has been making compact fluorescents for 20 years. Now the company admits that the little bit of mercury in each bulbs could become a real problem if sales balloon as expected.
"Given what we anticipate to be the significant increase in the use of these products, we are now beginning to look at, and shortly we'll be discussing with legislators, possibly a national solution here," says Earl Jones, a senior counsel for General Electric.
In fact, Jones said he was having his first talks with congressional staffers on Thursday.

[Mr Sparkle]

okay Celldog, you win.
it's NOT 99%

which precentage is it??
now you provide links and answers.

do it fast.
since you seemed so skeptical about it before must mean you had available some pretty strong evidence.

I look forward to your triumphant posting of it. :up:

posted since yesterday, Celldog got "all tuckered out" and had to go sleep mere seconds after I posted this.

[Paradoxium]

Since when does the pursuit of scientific truth have anything to do with group consensus? Science is not ****ing politics. If that was the case, then the earth is still flat. Every hypothesis should be scrutinized properly without any hackneyed shortcuts. There must be solid evidence. Damn with the conventional wisdom.

My position remains, people should still be responsible civilians and entrepreneurs, and not let scare tactics swindle them. This is a hysteria.

Read this article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm), does it seem like these people are in the same line as the nutjob conspiracy theorists?

Channel 4 says that the program features "an impressive roll-call of experts," including nine professors, who are experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography and paleoclimatology.

It also says the experts come from prestigious institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and universities and other schools in London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Alabama, Virginia and Winnipeg, Canada.

[Memphis Slim]

posted since yesterday, Celldog got "all tuckered out" and had to go sleep mere seconds after I posted this.





Skinner says when bulbs break near homes, they can contaminate the soil.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, and it's especially dangerous for children and fetuses. Most exposure to mercury comes from eating fish contaminated with mercury,
Some states, cities and counties have outlawed putting CFL bulbs in the trash, but in most state the practice is legal.




The Al Gore earth-friendly light bulb...........:dry:

[Memphis Slim]

Originally Posted by Mr Sparkle http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11320307#post11320307)
okay Celldog, you win.
it's NOT 99%

which precentage is it??
now you provide links and answers.

do it fast.
since you seemed so skeptical about it before must mean you had available some pretty strong evidence.

I look forward to your triumphant posting of it.



Seeing that I didn't post any percentages like Kritish, I don't need to answer that. I truly don't know. I just wish you libs were as honest. You don't know either. But spout off about how the majority of scientists are on your side. How the heck do you know this???

What I know is this........they said were gonna freeze to death....now we're gonna burn up. They just don't know. :yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

Seeing that I didn't post any percentages like Kritish, I don't need to answer that. I truly don't know. I just wish you libs were as honest. You don't know either. But spout off about how the majority of scientists are on your side. How the heck do you know this???

What I know is this........they said were gonna freeze to death....now we're gonna burn up. They just don't know. :yay:

no, you DO need to answer that, because you are clearly implying that the majority of scientists ARE NOT on the side of the global warming theory ( I'm not an infant so I don't see it as "my side" it's kind of telling you do, if anything I'm on the scientists side, since they know more than me.)
since you're acting incredulous, seems you have some contradicting evidence.

do share it, or what are you basing your argument on, then? I'm going to guess nothing.

and, much like you nitpicked about percentages I'd like to see where and which scientists said that we were going to "freeze to death" and that later subsequently said we we're going to "burn up"

I look forward to the answers for both questions.

see, that's the problem with your claims Celldog, you ALSO have to prove them.:woot:

you won't though.
you'll get tuckered out and have to leave again.

[Kritish]

99 percent? Can you show me some documentation on that number?? :dry:

You seem to know all the scientists and stuff....:yay:

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening. Thse "scientists" of yours aren't accepted anywhere in the science community. These guys are up here with the creation scientists in credibility.

Anyway...let Mr. Kritish respond to and defend his own bold statement.

Now here's my question to you. What is it with you and your vendetta against technology and EPA regulations? You seem to resist and resent any move towards progress.

[Mr Sparkle]

wadda ya know, Celldog had to leave again.
I'm sure he's furiously researching this.
in between saving pictures of aborted fetuses and stuff.

[Kritish]

wadda ya know, Celldog had to leave again.
I'm sure he's furiously researching this.
in between saving pictures of aborted fetuses and stuff.

He's just looking for some neo-con news letter to quote. I don't think he's posted something original on this thread.

[PhotoJones]

wadda ya know, Celldog had to leave again.
I'm sure he's furiously researching this.
in between saving pictures of aborted fetuses and stuff.

i'm surprised he's replied as much as he has. usually it's a poorly pasted post and off he goes.


speaking of which, can't he be nailed for spamming or trolling when he does stuff like that?

[Mr Sparkle]

Since when does the pursuit of scientific truth have anything to do with group consensus? Science is not ****ing politics. If that was the case, then the earth is still flat. Every hypothesis should be scrutinized properly without any hackneyed shortcuts. There must be solid evidence. Damn with the conventional wisdom.

My position remains, people should still be responsible civilians and entrepreneurs, and not let scare tactics swindle them. This is a hysteria.

Read this article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm), does it seem like these people are in the same line as the nutjob conspiracy theorists?

:huh: hysteria is excessive or uncontrollable fear, seeing as how many people (mostly civilians) still don't even think Global warming affects them, it hardly qualifies.

are the scientists that claim that global warming is real coming from fake institutions or using pseudo-science? otherwise I really don't see how that article made global warming fake all of a sudden.
:huh:
who's being swindled an how? It's not quite clear to me.
that's been my question.

[Memphis Slim]

wadda ya know, Celldog had to leave again.
I'm sure he's furiously researching this.
in between saving pictures of aborted fetuses and stuff.



The name is Slim.......

and I don't have time to spend arguing with you knuckle heads all day. So yep...I leave and come back. I have a pretty productive life. Family, career......try it one day. :yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL, I found Taiwarrior's dad!

[Paradoxium]

:huh: hysteria is excessive or uncontrollable fear, seeing as how many people (mostly civilians) still don't even think Global warming affects them, it hardly qualifies....who's being swindled an how? It's not quite clear to me.
that's been my question.Bush has been accused of the very same tactic with Iraq. Right or wrong, it's the idea I am after: using fear to justify expenditures and policy without major public criticisms (not saying it doesn't exist) or revolt. People's "uncontrollable" fear does not have to be overt. The catalyst and end goal is fear and policy acceptance.

are the scientists that claim that global warming is real coming from fake institutions or using pseudo-science? otherwise I really don't see how that article made global warming fake all of a sudden.
:huh:
Did I say they come from fake institutions? You're trying to setup a straw man argument. The main aim of the article (while the author does not believe in man-made Global Warming theory) cites the active charge to suppress, discredit and intimidate dissenting opinions of Global Warming.

Whether Global Warming exists or not, this type of practice is unacceptable, period. Could you imagine the reverse, where everyone says there is no global warming and the dissenters were bulled around for having a different opinion?

[Kritish]

LOL, I found Taiwarrior's dad!

Yeah, when in doubt make fun of people that post a lot. :whatever:

[Mr Sparkle]

Bush has been accused of the very same tactic with Iraq. Right or wrong, it's the idea I am after: using fear to justify expenditures and policy without major public criticisms (not saying it doesn't exist) or revolt. People's "uncontrollable" fear does not have to be overt. The catalyst and end goal is fear and policy acceptance.

:huh: aren't you kind of assuming your argument is right?
and people's uncontrollable fear would HAVE to be overt, because...uh...they can't control it.
and you keep focussing on policy and the things you want to focus on to make the people behind the cause you disagree with "bankrupt" (morally I assume)
that seems more than slightly disingenuous.
in the case of Al Gore ( who has made some mistakes in his approach to the problem) it's rather machiavelian, because he's been on the bandwagon for something like 25 years.
if the goal is "fear and policy acceptance"his methodology has been rather contrived.

Did I say they come from fake institutions? You're trying to setup a straw man argument. The main aim of the article (while the author does not believe in man-made Global Warming theory) cites the active charge to suppress, discredit and intimidate dissenting opinions of Global Warming.

:o you're way too defensive for your own good, I'm not trying to set up anything.
you're the one citing the articles you post as if by reading them all would be made clear, asking to disregard all and any evidence that happens to contradict your opinion.
and, frankly, I hate when people say stuff like "it's a strawman argument" because the people at Stormfront used it wayyyy too much.
the whole, mars and jupiter thing, now THAT was a strawman, I'm just asking you why I should disregard all the other evidence.
I'm asking what makes one claim more refutable than the other.
climate change has been a big fear of mine for a looooong time, mainly because I watched too many sci-fi movies, so I was gald at first when we were told "it's all ok folks" wow! dodged that bullet.
but then, the stuff I saw and the stuff that started coming in from the scientific community worried me again.
that's all.

this is one of those instances where I would hope the science was wrong.
though it's becoming apparent it's not.
I'm not even saying it's definitive, i'm just saying there's far too much out there to ignore.
and we're running out of oil anyway.


Whether Global Warming exists or not, this type of practice is unacceptable, period. Could you imagine the reverse, where everyone says there is no global warming and the dissenters were bulled around for having a different opinion?

but, here's the thing, I completely agree with you on that.
freedom of expression above all.
the last time I checked though, it was kind of the other way around, and there was a practice by the us goverment to downplay the effects of global warming.
I can see that both sides have good arguments ( well, I'm being generous, some of the deniers have said some outrageous stuff) in this case shouldn't we lean towards caution?

[ScottyBBadd]

Were trying to make changes but voters like you wont give the democrats enough power to make the changes. The more expensive light bulbs that use less energy last a lot longer in the long run, so you get your money back, plus you save money on your electric bill. So it's actually cheaper to get the energy efficent light bulbs.

The Democrats never put any more money in my pocket. Ironically my income has increased under the G.W.Bush presidency than it ever did under William J. Clinton. However, I do beileve that is a concidence. I have no deire to vote either Democrat or Repulican. They both lie. As for the long term, I can't get past $6-$10 dollars a bulb.

[ScottyBBadd]

It's not easy to live "carbon neutral", and it certainly isn't cheap. The science of it has not yet met the average consumer half way. it will soon enough, though.

Until it does I can't. Until an elected offical puts more money in my pocket, I will continue to vote against the Democrats and Republicans.

[ScottyBBadd]

Since when does the pursuit of scientific truth have anything to do with group consensus? Science is not ****ing politics. If that was the case, then the earth is still flat. Every hypothesis should be scrutinized properly without any hackneyed shortcuts. There must be solid evidence. Damn with the conventional wisdom.

My position remains, people should still be responsible civilians and entrepreneurs, and not let scare tactics swindle them. This is a hysteria.

Read this article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm), does it seem like these people are in the same line as the nutjob conspiracy theorists?

To me it does, but to those who believe global warming is a indisputable fact, I think not.

[Addendum]

I don't rely on politicians to put money in my pocket. That's why I have a job, and do work that merits a raise

[ScottyBBadd]

I don't rely on politicians to put money in my pocket. That's why I have a job, and do work that merits a raise

All I said was my income is considerably more now than then, but still not enough to "go green".

[Addendum]

I'll go green when I get an Xbox 360

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/xbox6.jpg

Or maybe chrome

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/xbox4.jpg

[ScottyBBadd]

I'll go green when I get an Xbox 360

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/xbox6.jpg

Or maybe chrome

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/xbox4.jpg

Go for it.

[Addendum]

The games I want to play on the 360 aren't out yet :csad:

[ScottyBBadd]

The games I want to play on the 360 aren't out yet :csad:

Darned shame.

[heypapajinx]

You do know that the Mayans also thought that the sun needed to have human blood spilt in its name every day or it wouldn't rise in the morning?
The Mayans have no credibility with me.
blood IS spilled everynight which causes the sun to rise everyday.
the ritual continues to this day... and one day it will be your turn to donate to the cause.
I have seen the theroies. That may just be the truest statement mentioned in this thread, yet. I totally forgot about it. And when the world ends in 2012, it won't be because of global warming.
THANK YOU!!!
FINALLY!!! someone with a little SENSE!!

[ScottyBBadd]

THANK YOU!!! FINALLY!!! someone with a little SENSE!!

You're welcome.

[Venom'sDad]

I have not seen this docudrama yet, I think it will be on Showtime this month, so I will give it a look whenever it comes on. My question is, is it one sided or do they offer alternative views (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html). IMHO, I believe that man has played some role locally, but a minuscule role... not to the point at the very least some would have people to believe. Now parts of this article tends to discount some of the theory it all man-made; yet, some tend to support it's man-made.

My thought is what man do is minuscule compared to what a fraction of the sun & nature(natural cycles) can do. That's just my opinion. None of these theories are absolute.

[Addendum]

Even if mankind has a miniscule effect on the environment, that doesn't invalidate humanity being conservation-minded.

And for those who follow and believe in the christian god-claim, that passage from genesis where mankind is given "dominion over the earth and everything that moves in it" means that mankind is to be a good steward of the planet. I think practising conservation is being a "good steward" as opposed to making the planet a giant parking lot and giant box stores the new form of plant life

[Venom'sDad]

I agree, and a nice thing to tell yourself, but the fact of the matter, there are a people who really cares less. That's the reason the ecology and environment screwed up, nearly every species of life other than viruses & humans are endangered, and all forms of resources and material are rapidly being abused.

[CyberFaust]

To me it does, but to those who believe global warming is a indisputable fact, I think not.

that's my line speciality for the time being.....as a man who knows this i tell you, global warming is a serious issue. It's science :cwink:

[Memphis Slim]

WELL WELL WELL...........:woot:

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/13/science/gore.600.jpg
Eric Lee/Paramount Classics
Al Gore’s film on global warming depicted a bleak future.

By WILLIAM J. BROAD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/william_j_broad/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: March 13, 2007
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/al_gore/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and his three-alarm film on global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/13/science/gore.2.190.jpg Stuart Isett for The New York Times
Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor,
has cited “inaccuracies” in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_colorado/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hurricanes_and_tropical_storms/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_aeronautics_and_space_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

These critics are coming from his own camp!!!!!!!!!!!! :woot: :woot:

[Memphis Slim]

well?? :yay:

[jaguarr]

I liked this part of the article, celldog:

He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.

Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.””

:)

jag

[The Lizard]

frankly, I hate when people say stuff like "it's a strawman argument" because the people at Stormfront used it wayyyy too much.


So pointing out a strawman argument is something a Neo-Nazi would say? :wow:


That sounds like something Adolf Hitler would say! :cmad:

[Ben Urich]

Fair and balanced as always, celldog. :down

[Memphis Slim]

It's Slim.............

and you're right. I'm always fair. :yay:

[Memphis Slim]

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_colorado/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”




I like this part.....:yay:

[PhotoJones]

well?? :yay:

well what?

you're able to copy and paste an article? props. :up:

way to cherry pick and ignore complete sections, btw.

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL, Celldiggity dog don't read his own articles yo!

that's funny!

[ScottyBBadd]

None of these theories are absolute.

No theroy is.

[ScottyBBadd]

WELL WELL WELL...........:woot:

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/13/science/gore.600.jpg
Eric Lee/Paramount Classics
Al Gore’s film on global warming depicted a bleak future.

By WILLIAM J. BROAD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/william_j_broad/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: March 13, 2007
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/al_gore/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and his three-alarm film on global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/13/science/gore.2.190.jpg Stuart Isett for The New York Times
Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor,
has cited “inaccuracies” in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_colorado/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hurricanes_and_tropical_storms/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_aeronautics_and_space_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

These critics are coming from his own camp!!!!!!!!!!!! :woot: :woot:

Isn't that something. His own backers doubt him.

[Memphis Slim]

yep :woot:

[Mr Sparkle]

Isn't that something. His own backers doubt him.


LOL, you and Celldog either didn't read the article or didn't understand it, I don't know which is worse :o

[ScottyBBadd]

LOL, you and Celldog either didn't read the article or didn't understand it, I don't know which is worse :o

Who is this Celldog you speak of?

[Mr Sparkle]

a Mythical creature from ages long past.

[ScottyBBadd]

a Mythical creature from ages long past.

Thanks for the clarifacation.

[AssMan]

Former Vice President Al Gore has collected nearly 300,000 electronic signatures asking Congress to take action on global warming, Gore said in an entry on his Web site Friday. Gore said the signatures demonstrate "that hundreds of thousands of people share my sense of urgency" on climate change. Gore is scheduled to testify before Congress about the issue Wednesday.

"Political will is a renewable resource, and enough already exists to start solving this crisis," Gore said. "We just have to communicate that forcefully to the political leaders of our country."

As of Friday morning, Gore's Web site had received 294,374 signatures. Gore called on supporters to urge friends and family to come up with enough new signatures for him to collect 350,000 by Wednesday.

Gore said members of Congress have "failed to act, because they have not yet faced a sufficient expression of political will on the part of the American people demanding they confront our climate crisis head on."

Gore, who starred in the documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" about global warming, has said repeatedly he has no plans to join the field of 2008 Democratic presidential aspirants.

But Gore's unwillingness to rule out a run completely has given some activists hope that he might change his mind. Gore lost his home state in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush.

Gore said there is a consensus on global warming among scientists.

"The debate on the science has long been over — except for a diminishing number of skeptics and deniers," he said.

Gore cited findings reported last month by the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change reported that global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years.

The panel, established by the
United Nations, concluded that global warming is "very likely" caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain.

If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the report said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070316/ap_on_sc/gore_global_warming

[hotmail]

I hope he runs.

We need another Republican president.

And the temperature will not rise by 11 degrees, of that you can be certain.

[Mr. Credible]

I hope he runs.

We need another Republican president.

And the temperature will not rise by 11 degrees, of that you can be certain.


and you know this how?


top scientists in the world's opinion > your's.

[hotmail]

and you know this how?


top scientists in the world's opinion > your's.

Because not every scientist is convinced about the seriousness of global warming and man being the main cause of it.

Some have even changed their minds about the whole thing.

[Mr Sparkle]

yeah, and everyone knows that when the majority of scientists are for something we must listen to the rather small side of the opposition.


DUH!

that's the SMART thing to do.

[Motown Marvel]

i signed one of those!

[hotmail]

yeah, and everyone knows that when the majority of scientists are for something we must listen to the rather small side of the opposition.


DUH!

that's the SMART thing to do.

Yeah and everybody knows that the majority of scientists are always correct all the time, especially when climate has only been studied for a very short period of time.:whatever:

Not to mention that since Mars and Jupiter are also showing signs of global warming, that the sun just might be a bit more responsible for it than we believe.

[Kritish]

Yeah and everybody knows that the majority of scientists are always correct all the time, especially when climate has only been studied for a very short period of time.:whatever:

Not to mention that since Mars and Jupiter are also showing signs of global warming, that the sun just might be a bit more responsible for it than we believe.

I get a kick out of internet users that work at McDonald's thinking that they know better than the leading scientists in the world.

[hotmail]

I get a kick out of internet users that work at McDonald's thinking that they know better than the leading scientists in the world.

And I get a kick out of people who don't read newspapers or keep up on current events outside an internet site.

http://wzus.ask.com/r?t=p&d=us&s=a&c=a&l=dir&o=0&sv=0a300514&ip=d1521a84&id=7D739D714C70A36E6B2FA6AEB1C97D7F&q=mars+warming+up&p=1&qs=1&ac=6&g=48a9o3FxWYcuhx&en=te&io=0&ep=&eo=&b=alg&bc=&br=&tp=d&ec=10&pt=Mars%20is%20warming%20up%2C%20has%20seismic%20a ctivity%2C%20probe%20photos%20suggest%20%7C%20...&ex=&url=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azstarnet.com%2Fallheadlines%2F 94295

[Kritish]

And I get a kick out of people who don't read newspapers or keep up on current events outside an internet site.

http://wzus.ask.com/r?t=p&d=us&s=a&c=a&l=dir&o=0&sv=0a300514&ip=d1521a84&id=7D739D714C70A36E6B2FA6AEB1C97D7F&q=mars+warming+up&p=1&qs=1&ac=6&g=48a9o3FxWYcuhx&en=te&io=0&ep=&eo=&b=alg&bc=&br=&tp=d&ec=10&pt=Mars%20is%20warming%20up%2C%20has%20seismic%20a ctivity%2C%20probe%20photos%20suggest%20%7C%20...&ex=&url=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azstarnet.com%2Fallheadlines%2F 94295

I should trust some rouge internet site instead of the USA today Scientific American and the New York Times?

[hotmail]

I should trust some rouge internet site instead of the USA today Scientific American and the New York Times?

How about Space.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Or National Geographic?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[sinewave]

I hope he runs.

We need another Republican president.

And the temperature will not rise by 11 degrees, of that you can be certain.

yeah, because republicans have done such a great job over the last 6+ years. :whatever:

[hotmail]

yeah, because republicans have done such a great job over the last 6+ years. :whatever:

Actually I was referring to the fact that Al Gore scares most Americans and if he was running for president, most voters might vote Republican as a way to protect themselves.

[sinewave]

Actually I was referring to the fact that Al Gore scares most Americans and if he was running for president, most voters might vote Republican as a way to protect themselves.

and i was referring to your statement that we need another republican president. i think the republican party scares more people right now than al gore does, if the mid-term elections are any indication.

[hotmail]

and i was referring to your statement that we need another republican president. i think the republican party scares more people right now than al gore does, if the mid-term elections are any indication.

We'll see come next November, commie :cmad:

[Kritish]

Sinewave, I've signed a contract that I only have to debate with idiots like hotmail for two posts. Would you like to get in the ring and kick some ass for me?

[sinewave]

We'll see come next November, commie :cmad:

that we will, fascist. :dry:

Sinewave, I've signed a contract that I only have to debate with idiots like hotmail for two posts. Would you like to get in the ring and kick some ass for me?

no thanks, dude. i like to play it by ear.

[Memphis Slim]

http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/01/aninconvenienttruthposter.jpg

"OBEY ME, MY BRAIN-WASHED HOARDES!!!!!!!!"

[bored]

Hey, we are classy who-.... Oh... "hoardes".... Gotcha...

[Kritish]

I'll humor the global warming naysayers, even if global warming isn't true It's a good idea to come up with cars that don't shoot out poison gas into our atmosphere. If you can kill yourself in the garage by keeping the motor on while the door's closed what do you think happens with millions of cars are shooting the same amount into our atmosphere every day?
We have to face also that our oil supplies are running out, and that we aren't the best of friends with the middle east at the moment. If start to use alternative fuels such as fuel cells or bio fuels you'll find out that we'll not only have cleaner air but we won't depend upon the middle east as much or if at all. There's nothing that will happen that will be bad from us not using fossil fuels.

[hotmail]

I'll humor the global warming naysayers, even if global warming isn't true It's a good idea to come up with cars that don't shoot out poison gas into our atmosphere. If you can kill yourself in the garage by keeping the motor on while the door's closed what do you think happens with millions of cars are shooting the same amount into our atmosphere every day?
We have to face also that our oil supplies are running out, and that we aren't the best of friends with the middle east at the moment. If start to use alternative fuels such as fuel cells or bio fuels you'll find out that we'll not only have cleaner air but we won't depend upon the middle east as much or if at all. There's nothing that will happen that will be bad from us not using fossil fuels.

Nobody is arguing against that, but it's not technically feasible right now, unless you're willing to ante up $50,000 for a $13,000 car.

[Mr Sparkle]

Yeah and everybody knows that the majority of scientists are always correct all the time, especially when climate has only been studied for a very short period of time.:whatever:

Not to mention that since Mars and Jupiter are also showing signs of global warming, that the sun just might be a bit more responsible for it than we believe.

yeah, totally man, please remind yourself of that awesome super science you sling next time you go to a doctor, throw away your prescription and stick muddy sticks up your nose while drinking mountain dew and singing the "Airbourne Ranger" song.
I'll bet it'll work for you :up:
it's hilarious that people are so skeptic about this, mostly because it involves effort on their part, I'll bet of the majority of scientists said ëvrytyhing's fine"you be here telling me about how the majority of scientists are saying blah, blah, blah.

whatever, you're cattle, enjoy it.

[Tyrinus]

I'll humor the global warming naysayers, even if global warming isn't true It's a good idea to come up with cars that don't shoot out poison gas into our atmosphere. If you can kill yourself in the garage by keeping the motor on while the door's closed what do you think happens with millions of cars are shooting the same amount into our atmosphere every day?
We have to face also that our oil supplies are running out, and that we aren't the best of friends with the middle east at the moment. If start to use alternative fuels such as fuel cells or bio fuels you'll find out that we'll not only have cleaner air but we won't depend upon the middle east as much or if at all. There's nothing that will happen that will be bad from us not using fossil fuels.

Well you are really misinterpreting things. Global warming 'naysayers' aren't against renewable sources of energy, cutting emissions, etc. They simply think global warming is part of earth's natural cycle(and it's known that the earth goes to temperature extreme cycles). That humans impact on global warming maybe there to a small degree but not enough to influence it to the extreme 'global warming fanatics' believe. Global warming will happen regardless of what humans do, and when an ice age rolls back around, it's going to happen regardless of what humans do too. The earth was here long before humans and will be here long after.

[Matt Murdock]

Putting it plainly, nobody can be sure about the issue of global warming. Scientists cannot determine whether or not the cause of the recent increases in temperature are due to the burning of carbon based fuels or if the Earth has a natural cycle of climate change.

There is evidence to suggest that the earth has been through as many as 6, or even 7, ice ages.

Also, how is it possible that roughly a decade ago, there was a massive hole in the Ozone layer. A hole that was unable to be repaired unless we used less energy. Now, according to Gore, the atmosphere is acting like a blanket and is trapping heat waves on the surface. It isn't very logical that these two things can occur within a decade of one another.

[Halcohol]

Putting it plainly, nobody can be sure about the issue of global warming. Scientists cannot determine whether or not the cause of the recent increases in temperature are due to the burning of carbon based fuels or if the Earth has a natural cycle of climate change.

There is evidence to suggest that the earth has been through as many as 6, or even 7, ice ages.

Also, how is it possible that roughly a decade ago, there was a massive hole in the Ozone layer. A hole that was unable to be repaired unless we used less energy. Now, according to Gore, the atmosphere is acting like a blanket and is trapping heat waves on the surface. It isn't very logical that these two things can occur within a decade of one another.

Just because there's a hole in the ozone layer doesn't mean that atmospheric heat is escaping into space. You've been taking George Carlin too literally. :rolleyes:

Because of the depletion in the ozone layer, the intensity of UV rays entering the atmosphere has increased over the north and south poles. What this means it that more of the sun's energy is reaching ground level, contributing (slightly) to global warming. The main problem with ozone depletion is that intense UV rays would contribute to an increase in the occurrence of skin cancer, and that's not good for anybody.

My main problem with people opposing global warming is that they're using their scepticism as a reason to ignore all of the lifestyle changes that are being proposed to combat it. For years, there's been a minority of the population who have advocated reducing greenhouse gas emissions, finding cleaner ways to put automobile exhaust into the atmosphere, and lessening our dependence on fossil fuels. Global warming is simply a blanket problem that could be helped by doing all of these things, but people don't want to listen.

If someone were to tell me that reducing the amount of crap we pump into the atmosphere is a bad thing, I would simply assume that they're far too comfortable living their high-energy, mass-consumption lifestyle to be bothered about things like consideration toward mother nature and preservation of the global ecosystem.

If you don't agree with global warming, fine. That's your right. But the least you can do is think about conservation of the planet's limited resources. The Amazon keeps disappearing, but if you can't be bothered to take your newspapers down to the recycling depot then perhaps it's for the best that the planet won't be able to support your children's lives.

[ScottyBBadd]

I'll humor the global warming naysayers, even if global warming isn't true It's a good idea to come up with cars that don't shoot out poison gas into our atmosphere. If you can kill yourself in the garage by keeping the motor on while the door's closed what do you think happens with millions of cars are shooting the same amount into our atmosphere every day?
We have to face also that our oil supplies are running out, and that we aren't the best of friends with the middle east at the moment. If start to use alternative fuels such as fuel cells or bio fuels you'll find out that we'll not only have cleaner air but we won't depend upon the middle east as much or if at all. There's nothing that will happen that will be bad from us not using fossil fuels.

Those reasons you mentioned and not global warming are the reasons to use alternate energy sources. I personally I am for anything that can take money out of the hands of those who could be sponsoring terrorism.

[hotmail]

Just because there's a hole in the ozone layer doesn't mean that atmospheric heat is escaping into space. You've been taking George Carlin too literally. :rolleyes:

Because of the depletion in the ozone layer, the intensity of UV rays entering the atmosphere has increased over the north and south poles. What this means it that more of the sun's energy is reaching ground level, contributing (slightly) to global warming. The main problem with ozone depletion is that intense UV rays would contribute to an increase in the occurrence of skin cancer, and that's not good for anybody.

My main problem with people opposing global warming is that they're using their scepticism as a reason to ignore all of the lifestyle changes that are being proposed to combat it. For years, there's been a minority of the population who have advocated reducing greenhouse gas emissions, finding cleaner ways to put automobile exhaust into the atmosphere, and lessening our dependence on fossil fuels. Global warming is simply a blanket problem that could be helped by doing all of these things, but people don't want to listen.

If someone were to tell me that reducing the amount of crap we pump into the atmosphere is a bad thing, I would simply assume that they're far too comfortable living their high-energy, mass-consumption lifestyle to be bothered about things like consideration toward mother nature and preservation of the global ecosystem.

If you don't agree with global warming, fine. That's your right. But the least you can do is think about conservation of the planet's limited resources. The Amazon keeps disappearing, but if you can't be bothered to take your newspapers down to the recycling depot then perhaps it's for the best that the planet won't be able to support your children's lives.

Should I call you Mr. Malthius, or have we gotten friendly enough to call each other by our first names Tommy?

Fact is that you are correct in saying that we can't live the way we live forever without depleting the planet's resources. However, that would assume that we would live the way we're living until we used up our resources and didn't respond to changes in our circumstances or economics.

Society has always changed and adapted to new circumstances as the need rose and society has always survived. However for that to happen, there has to be a real need, not an artificially created one.

For example, the original mass energy source was coal and society did well with it for thousands of years. However, there came a time when, due to limited technology, coal became a scarce resource and very expensive. As a result, society started to using whale oil to light up their streets and heat their homes, but it also started to become a scarce resource and became expensive, so society moved into the age of oil.

Now that the age of oil is starting to became very expensive, society is again casting about for an alternative and we're moving towards the alternatives, but it's not due to some idealogical imperative, but a real one.

[Mr Sparkle]

http://www.thegully.com/essays/US/politics_2001/imgs_politics/bush_address2.jpghttp://freemasonrywatch.org/pics/AlGoreLight.jpg

"OBEY ME, MY BRAIN-WASHED HOARDES!!!!!!!!"

:csad: :up:

[Kritish]

How would America be different? This isn’t a anti-Bush thread, I’d just like to know how you guys think Gore would handle certain issues.


How would Gore have handled 9/11?
How would Gore have dealt with the immigration debate?
How would Gore have dealt with the environment?Feel free to add in anything you think would be different.

[Showtime]

He would have rebuilt the Ozone using the Internet, which he invented.

[Spider-Bite]

we'd be a lot farther along with alternative energy. we wouldn't be as hated in the world as we are now. minimum wage would have gone up about 4 years ago. we'd have a surplus instead of a deficit. no iraq war. he would have invaded Afghanistan. the mars mission probably wouldn't have been passed. the poverty rate would be lower. the dont' ask, don't tell policy would be gone. terrorist recruitment would be lower than it is now. he wouldn't have vetoed the gas price gouging bill, the stem cill bill, or the hate crimes bill. we'd probably have stricter gun legislation, and that rescent college shooting wouldn't have happened. Not Al Gore said he'd do this, but knowing him, he'd have gotten some anti-child molestation social programs running, similliar to Howard Dean's success by six program, and the number of children being molested would be lower.

Overall better world.

[Spider-Bite]

and he would have funded the no child left behind act.

[Spider-Bite]

Anybody know where he stands on illegal immigration?

[Spider-Bite]

Possession of marijuana would only be a ticketable offense, saving the country a lot of money.

In his second term, I could see him trying to abolish the death penalty as well.

[Spider-Bite]

God Bush sucks.

[Brian2887]

we'd be a lot farther along with alternative energy. we wouldn't be as hated in the world as we are now. minimum wage would have gone up about 4 years ago. we'd have a surplus instead of a deficit. no iraq war. he would have invaded Afghanistan. the mars mission probably wouldn't have been passed. the poverty rate would be lower. the dont' ask, don't tell policy would be gone. terrorist recruitment would be lower than it is now. he wouldn't have vetoed the gas price gouging bill, the stem cill bill, or the hate crimes bill. we'd probably have stricter gun legislation, and that rescent college shooting wouldn't have happened. Not Al Gore said he'd do this, but knowing him, he'd have gotten some anti-child molestation social programs running, similliar to Howard Dean's success by six program, and the number of children being molested would be lower.

Overall better world.


Cats and dogs would be best friends!
It would rain candy!


We wouldn't be in the mess we're in, but it's not like we were electing God.

We likely would have invaded Afghanistan. That war was retalliation. Iraq is a joke, but Afghanistan had a point. We probably wouldn't be in Iraq, but we wouldn't be perfectly well off, either.

[hippie_hunter]

we'd be a lot farther along with alternative energy. we wouldn't be as hated in the world as we are now. minimum wage would have gone up about 4 years ago. we'd have a surplus instead of a deficit. no iraq war. he would have invaded Afghanistan. the mars mission probably wouldn't have been passed. the poverty rate would be lower. the dont' ask, don't tell policy would be gone. terrorist recruitment would be lower than it is now. he wouldn't have vetoed the gas price gouging bill, the stem cill bill, or the hate crimes bill. we'd probably have stricter gun legislation, and that rescent college shooting wouldn't have happened. Not Al Gore said he'd do this, but knowing him, he'd have gotten some anti-child molestation social programs running, similliar to Howard Dean's success by six program, and the number of children being molested would be lower.

Overall better world.

I think a lot of your stuff is assumptions and guesses. There is no way to say that the poverty rate, number of child molestations, and terrorist recruitment would be lower, the shooting at VA Tech wouldn't have happened, and other things.

Personally, I think the United States would have more of a leadership role in enviromental issues. We'd have a better image than we do now because I doubt that Gore would have most likely not invaded Iraq. He would have done just as well as in handling 9/11, for any President with half a brain could have done what he did. I don't know about the minimum wage because I think the Republicans to this day would still be in control of Congress if it weren't for Bush's f**k up with Iraq and the Republicans most likely wouldn't have gotten as cocky and arrogant if Bush weren't in office.

[MaskedManJRK]

I'm not sure if things would be really different. Our world image would improve, we'd probably be more environment friendly, and if we did go into Iraq, it would have probably been handled a lot better.

Other than that, things would probably be exactly the same.

[OverMyHead]

If Gore was the president, this whole global warming debate would not even have occured.

This is not an opinion; it's a fact.

[Ice-man]

me and my friends were talking about gore last night. if we would have elected him, one of the biggest things that he would have done, would be the realization of the global warming threat at an earlyer stage, he seems to be a big environmeantalist (to an extent) we could have made more advances to help the earth.

instead our money is going to a poinltess war, **** the war, **** those that fight in them. make peace....

maybe we could have avoided some major catarophys too.


im just no fan of G.W, whos running for president anyway, if clinton is in the race for preasidancy, than i want her to win, shes been around so she seems like she would know what to do, i think we can make some big progressions wth hers as new president.

[Arkady Rossovich]

we'd be a lot farther along with alternative energy. we wouldn't be as hated in the world as we are now. minimum wage would have gone up about 4 years ago. we'd have a surplus instead of a deficit. no iraq war. he would have invaded Afghanistan. the mars mission probably wouldn't have been passed. the poverty rate would be lower. the dont' ask, don't tell policy would be gone. terrorist recruitment would be lower than it is now. he wouldn't have vetoed the gas price gouging bill, the stem cill bill, or the hate crimes bill. we'd probably have stricter gun legislation, and that rescent college shooting wouldn't have happened. Not Al Gore said he'd do this, but knowing him, he'd have gotten some anti-child molestation social programs running, similliar to Howard Dean's success by six program, and the number of children being molested would be lower.

Overall better world.

I doubt all of that would be true,but i can agree with 3 things.1-Alternative energy would be farther developed,and the government would fund green projects instead of states doing that.2-no iraq war,Gore would be busy with the enviroment.3-Europe and the world would not hate the USA.

God Bush sucks.

Get the whole country to say that,and Europe will forgive you.:yay:

[ScottyBBadd]

Here's a thought. The Republicans might still have the majority in Congress. This would block all the things that Al Gore would do in your opinions.

[Vic Von Doom]

I like Al Gore. I think it'd be cool if he ran again, because I think he could win. But look at you all writing as if we'd be living in a utopia if Gore had won the election. Things wouldn't be that different.

Also, everyone knows that Gore never said he "invented" the Internet, right?

[eat aliens]

Get the whole country to say that,and Europe will forgive you.:yay:

He has a 30% approval rating and the democrats have taken back the majority in congress. We have pretty much sent the message to the President that he sucks. (not that he's smart enough to figure it out :o )

[jaguarr]

Here's a thought. The Republicans might still have the majority in Congress. This would block all the things that Al Gore would do in your opinions.

If only someone had thought of that earlier in the thread.

I think a lot of your stuff is assumptions and guesses. There is no way to say that the poverty rate, number of child molestations, and terrorist recruitment would be lower, the shooting at VA Tech wouldn't have happened, and other things.

Personally, I think the United States would have more of a leadership role in enviromental issues. We'd have a better image than we do now because I doubt that Gore would have most likely not invaded Iraq. He would have done just as well as in handling 9/11, for any President with half a brain could have done what he did. I don't know about the minimum wage because I think the Republicans to this day would still be in control of Congress if it weren't for Bush's f**k up with Iraq and the Republicans most likely wouldn't have gotten as cocky and arrogant if Bush weren't in office.

jag

[Vic Von Doom]

Republicans to this day would still be in control of Congress if it weren't for Bush's f**k up with Iraq and the Republicans most likely wouldn't have gotten as cocky and arrogant if Bush weren't in office.


Let me let you in on a little secret. It's not Republicans that are cocky and arrogant. It's politicians. It doesn't matter who you vote for in any election...ever. They are scum. Politicians are scum. Democrat, Republican, Green, Whig...they are all scum. Sometimes a bunch of one group of politicians all get caught doing stupid ****. Then the other group of politicians gets all indignant like, "We would never do this stupid ****! (insert party here) are all scum!"

But then it's the other group of people's turn to get caught doing the same stupid ****. Then the other group gets to go, "Hey, look! It's (insert other party here) that are scum! Not us! The stupid **** we did is nowhere near the stupid **** that they did!" But it is.

It's all the same stupid **** from the same scummy people. All politics is is one group of scumbags getting caught doing stupid **** and the other group of scumbags telling them they are scumbags. Rinse and repeat.

It doesn't matter if Gore would have won the election because even though I just said I liked him, which I do, he's scum just like the rest of them. Great politicians are those who can hire douchebags to make the scumbags not look like scumbags. Truly legendary politicians are those who don't bother to make themselves not look like scumbags, yet people love them anyway.

Sorry if this is all a little too cynical for you, but it's how I see it. The people who wake up in the morning and decide they want to help people are too busy doing things like teaching our children, policing our streets, putting out fires, and curing diseases to run for office.

[SoulManX]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.
Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles (160 km) per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.
The deputy smelled marijuana and searched the car, said sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. The search turned up a small amount of marijuana, along with prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin, Adderall and Soma. There were no prescriptions found, he said.



Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and booked into the Inmate Reception Centre in Santa Ana, about 34 miles (55 km) south of Los Angeles, on $20,000 (9,917 pound) bail. Although he quickly identified himself as the son of the former vice president, Amormino said Gore received no special privileges.
Gore made bail and was released at 2 p.m., Amormino said. He will receive notice of a court date within 30 days.
The youngest child and only son of the former vice president, Gore has had previous brushes with the law. He was arrested in 2003 for marijuana possession and in 2002 for suspected drunken-driving.
In 1989, aged six, Gore almost died when he was hit by a car, and required extensive surgery and physical therapy.
A spokesman for the elder Gore said he was travelling and could not immediately be reached for comment. The one-time presidential candidate is one of the organizers of the Live Earth concerts taking place around the world on July 7. The concerts are designed to raise awareness of global warming.

[Immortalfire]

Well at least he was in a hybrid :dry:

[SoulManX]

Well at least he was in a hybrid :dry:

Amen Brother:o

[Kebab gud]

Speeding... in a prius?

[SoulManX]

Speeding... in a prius?

Doing 100 mph...mind boggling isn't:ninja:

[chamber-music]

Al Gore the third!
what is it with rich people and giving their kids the same first name. After 2 generations they should stop.

[SoulManX]

Al Gore the third!
what is it with rich people and giving their kids the same first name. After 2 generations they should stop.

EGO TRIP:word:

[Spider-Bite]

that's kind of sad.

[blind_fury]

What kind of drug? :o

[jaguarr]

Bummer to hear that. I've read that Gore's son has had a bad time with the drugs. So many kids of rich & famous folks wind up f'd up.

jag

[PhotoJones]

Bummer to hear that. I've read that Gore's son has had a bad time with the drugs. So many kids of rich & famous folks wind up f'd up.

jag

Having a large amount of disposable income at a young age will do that.

[jaguarr]

Having a large amount of disposable income at a young age will do that.

Indeed. Even when those rich and famous parents try hard to not spoil them, it happens.

jag

[Spider-Bite]

Bummer to hear that. I've read that Gore's son has had a bad time with the drugs. So many kids of rich & famous folks wind up f'd up.

jag

Having a former Vice President for a father can put a kid under a lot of pressure as well. Everybody expects you to be perfect.

[jaguarr]

Having a former Vice President for a father can put a kid under a lot of pressure as well. Everybody expects you to be perfect.

Yup. Look at the Bush twins and all the crap they get into.

jag

[moraldeficiency]

The guy had some pot and pills in personal usage amounts. He got nailed for speeding not DUI too so that means he wasn't high.

Kids not in politics or even a celeb. Hell I didn't even know he existed until I read this. So really who cares? He doesn't sound like a monster or anything, he just likes to go fast and enjoys some pharmacutical enlightenment. Other than speeding none of that should even be illegal.

[Deep Thinkin'!]

Having a former Vice President for a father can put a kid under a lot of pressure as well. Everybody expects you to be perfect.

Imagine how much more pressure if Gore had won the election.

[PhotoJones]

Imagine how much more pressure if Gore had won the election.

I thought he did win. ;)

[moraldeficiency]

I thought he did win. ;)

I was timing to see how long it took for someone to say it. Getting slow there PJ.

[guitarsingerguy]

http://aegmaha.com/9482cd74d/thumbs/b/2006052421475966061.JPG

"Save the environment, or I'll ****ing kill you!"

[Fred_Fury]

big freaking deal he had some weed and pills, so the kid likes to party

[Deep Thinkin'!]

big freaking deal he had some weed and pills, so the kid likes to party

They're only making a big deal out of it because it's Gore's kid.

This happens from day to day with normal teens.

[Spider-Bite]

Yup. Look at the Bush twins and all the crap they get into.

jag

My first reaction to that was "Why does it make me happy to know they get into trouble?"

but then after a few seconds I started to feel sorry for them. I can't imagine having Bush for a father. When your father is the President, and the whole world hates him, it might feel really embarassing every time you leave the house, or when you face your friends or go to school.

[R0rschach]

Now he should run.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_eu/nobel_peace

[Matt]

He always should've run. I think it is getting to the point where it is too late to get on ballots now.

[rdh007]

Agreed on both counts. Though I still hold out hope as I don't think Hilary can beat any of the Republicans. Heck, I might choose Ron Paul over her just for the lack of hypocrisy.

[Matt]

The best part about Gore is, I'm 95 % sure this time around Bill Richardson would be his running mate. Why can't he run? With this crop of candidates he would be a shoe-in. Hilary must have some pretty good dirt on him to keep him out of the election.

[terry78]

Which candidate has a Nobel Prize? Not so fast, everyone else.

[ElToro]

Al Gore was sopposed to win when he was running in 2000.
He would have been a great presedent.

[musclesforsupes]

Off topic but what happen to he man and she ra and when did they start shopping at Kroger?:csad:

http://www.jonsiruno.com/about/blog/uploaded_images/thumb-05_he-man_family.jpg

[SentinelMind]

Al Gore is not going to run against the wife of his former boss, Bill Clinton.

[moraldeficiency]

This is like the crappiest thing ever. You've got pacifist monks being tortured and horribly murdered and a guy that makes money for an environmental lecture takes the prize?

I'm not saying Al Gore isn't doing a good thing (though I wish he'd use better facts and figures and not try to play up hysteria) but there are so many better deserving people that have actually sacrificed their lives, families and bodies for their cause. Al Gore profitted from his work and didn't sacrifice crap other than his time, this @hit makes me sick.

[Dwarf lord]

This is like the crappiest thing ever. You've got pacifist monks being tortured and horribly murdered and a guy that makes money for an environmental lecture takes the prize?

I'm not saying Al Gore isn't doing a good thing (though I wish he'd use better facts and figures and not try to play up hysteria) but there are so many better deserving people that have actually sacrificed their lives, families and bodies for their cause. Al Gore profitted from his work and didn't sacrifice crap other than his time, this @hit makes me sick.

I do kind of agree. There are tons more people in the world who promoted peace more than Gore. Not saying that I'm anti Gore, but still, it doesn't make much sense.

[Ice-man]

I've always wanted Al to win the presidential election, it really sucks that Bush won, Bush has done nothing but add on problems that he sure as hell cant fix by himself.

How he won for a second term is beyond me, Al gore at least cares about Global warming and the future of mankind, and frankly i would love for him to be the new president.

As long as bush is out of office I'm fine.