Why the f@&% do people think Bush is that bad? Al Gore is the true menace!
Point one: Gore says that he cares about the enviroment. And Bush tried to pass all kinds of bills to help with the enviroment, like the Cleaner Air Initiative, and turning northern Hawaii (still sketchy on where, but Hawaii) into a marine haven. Gore 'wasn't able to enforce' these bills.
Point two: After debates, The Inconvient Truth is being force-fed to students at schools, without any type of alternatives. Gore's lies are being broadcasted to us, without any type second choice. Gore should care about the people (even though being democratic) enough to allow a choice.
Point three: Besides, can you base the entire career of a man on one choice he made (Iraqi Freedom), even though it's for the greater good?
Point four: Scientists that wern't paid, employed, or anyway influenced by ANYONE, discovered that global warming is blown completely out of porportion. Even is the ice sheets melt, at worst, sea will rise maybe ten feet? And the stuff he worried about, the Antartic ice sheets, FYI Gore, its getting COLDER in the southern hemisphere. The ice won't melt, stop worrying. Gore's one standpoint, is a sham.
Who agrees?
Originally posted by lordsquireGore is peanutty for sure, but he has many supporters on this site, so you should get some good response as to why Gore is all knowing and a champion of the people/environment... all that is good.
Why the f@&% do people think Bush is that bad? Al Gore is the true menace!
Point one: Gore says that he cares about the enviroment. And Bush tried to pass all kinds of bills to help with the enviroment, like the Cleaner Air Initiative, and turning northern Hawaii (still sketchy on where, but Hawaii) into a marine haven. Gore 'wasn't able to enforce' ...[text shortened]... e. The ice won't melt, stop worrying. Gore's one standpoint, is a sham.
Who agrees?
Originally posted by lordsquireI completely agree with you! Gore is the quintessential hypocrite. A narcissistic, self-styled prophet on a mission of unenlightenment. But don't worry because his 15 minutes of fame is nearly up. The evidence against his global warming religion is accumulating so fast, even he will be forced to admit he's been barking up the wrong tree ever since he failed in politics and turned trendy environmentalist instead. It won't be long before Gore is considered a bumbling clown who failed at everything.
Why the f@&% do people think Bush is that bad? Al Gore is the true menace!
Point one: Gore says that he cares about the enviroment. And Bush tried to pass all kinds of bills to help with the enviroment, like the Cleaner Air Initiative, and turning northern Hawaii (still sketchy on where, but Hawaii) into a marine haven. Gore 'wasn't able to enforce' ...[text shortened]... e. The ice won't melt, stop worrying. Gore's one standpoint, is a sham.
Who agrees?
The only problem, as you mentioned, is the poor innocent kids being brainwashed by Gore's self-aggrandizing hogwash along the way.
But here's why Gore has missed the boat:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009552
http://www.stuff.co.nz//timaruherald/4064691a6571.html?source=email
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CIRVFYJFUDABHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=1
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency" : melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over. "
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again.....
Originally posted by SpastiGovYou seem incapable of posting a single message without ranting about the 'great global warming myth'.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency" : melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more an ...[text shortened]... laciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again.....
Protest too much methinks?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI believe the Shakespearean quote you intended (but through your vast ignorance used completely out of context) is, "Me thinks he doth protest too much". Tis to do with guilt, dear boy, and not with objecting to an argument in logic!
You seem incapable of posting a single message without ranting about the 'great global warming myth'.
Protest too much methinks?
"Come, ye are a tedious fool. To the purpose!"
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeYou like trumpeting the same tired old fairy story don't you? That silly myth is as old as the globull warming myth itself! Unlike the FACT that most of the "scientists" perpetuating the AGW/climate change myth are benefitting from fat government grants to indulge in "research" to fix a non-existent problem. Hence their enthusiasm.
Zing!
(Spastigov suddenly realises just why oil companies try so hard to discredit AGW)
Originally posted by SpastiGovSo, you're saying that scientists (as a whole, more or less) are actively perpetuating facts they know to be false in order to cash-in because despite being in a field based on a rational, experimentally varifiable search for truth, they are actually profit-driven, money grubbing liars bent on slandering poor, indefensible oil companies?
You like trumpeting the same tired old fairy story don't you? That silly myth is as old as the globull warming myth itself! Unlike the FACT that most of the "scientists" perpetuating the AGW/climate change myth are benefitting from fat government grants to indulge in "research" to fix a non-existent problem. Hence their enthusiasm.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeWell you're not far off there mate, although a tad over cooked. I'm not talking about scientists in general. I'm saying that many if not most of the scientists involved in climate change/global warming 'research' (read "developing computer-based climate models) and who then spout forth the "Gospel According to Gore", have a vested interest to continue in that line because of the huge government funds available. I would say that many of these scientists actually do believe their climate models and believe that global warming/climate-change is man made, but many also doubt the theory itself and the validity of their own climate models, but they have now gone too far down that road or are too motivated by the money flow to back-track and tell the truth. They make more out of perpetuating a popular myth than by advertising the fact there is nothing unusual happening. At the moment these scientists can't lose because they have the powerful support and interest of the media and the politicians: the media chase stories of catastrophe and drama, no matter how absurd, while the politicians are chasing votes.
So, you're saying that scientists (as a whole, more or less) are actively perpetuating facts they know to be false in order to cash-in because despite being in a field based on a rational, experimentally varifiable search for truth, they are actually profit-driven, money grubbing liars bent on slandering poor, indefensible oil companies?
Despite the popular misconception, oil companies have nothing to do with it. The theory is politically driven.
Originally posted by SpastiGovpolitics and oil are inseperable.
there is nothing unusual happening. At the moment these scientists can't lose because they have the powerful support and interest of the media and the politicians: the media chase stories of catastrophe and drama, no matter how absurd, while the politicians are chasing votes.
Despite the popular misconception, oil companies have nothing to do with it. The theory is politically driven.
and
unusual things _are_ happening.
check out www.realclimate.org
Originally posted by lordsquireWhy did Gore oppose these bills?
Point one: Gore says that he cares about the enviroment. And Bush tried to pass all kinds of bills to help with the enviroment, like the Cleaner Air Initiative, and turning northern Hawaii (still sketchy on where, but Hawaii) into a marine haven. Gore 'wasn't able to enforce' these bills.
Anyone that doesn't think smog from cars/trucks will kill living things needs to go for a jog on the 405 in Sept. during a Santa Ana.
Anyone who thinks Al Gore has anything more than a political agenda with his dog and pony show needs to adjust their meds.
Many/most scientists are athesits, so they make up their own morality.
Could be anything.
Hard to believe I know, but a percentage of them just may be corrupt when it comes to $$$.
A lot of these just finished up University and learned all about GW.
Which view of GW do you suspose they got from their Uni Profs.?
A job in the research "industry" is a plum .. so ..
Yeah, plenty of "scientists" will jump at those type jobs REGARDLESS .. they might even try to drag it out ... for years, even decades if possible.
They might even come to believe it themselves .. "Hey, maybe I AM a scientest