Al Gore is at it again??????

Discussion in 'Politics' started by thjplgvp, May 24, 2006.

  1. thjplgvp

    thjplgvp
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    23
    "An inconvenient Truth" sponsored and MC'd by none other than Al. One good thing he has finally learned to use Power Point but the man who was taught by Bill C. has now determined (contrary to much scientific proof) that we will have 300,000 deaths per year within 25 years all caused by global warming. And all because I did not insulate my house, change my appliances, and allowed my daughter to drive an SUV. I am so sorry i've destroyed the world. [​IMG] :D

    Article in ...
    http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/newsservice.htm

    Wall Streets response ...

    http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2006/faxback/3009_truth.htm
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's remarkably easy to trash a documentary movie you haven't seen and science that you don't understand.
     
  3. thjplgvp

    thjplgvp
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    23
    That is right Daisy. How do you know Al is lying? His lips are moving.

    The Wall Street journal calls the movie and the info in it inaccurate I quote "So what is the reality about global warming and its impact on the world? A new study released this week by the National Center for Policy Analysis, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts" (www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285 <http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/ http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/> ) looks at a wide variety of climate matters, from global warming and hurricanes to rain and drought, sea levels, arctic temperatures and solar radiation. It concludes that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21rst century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

    "The environmental pessimists tell us, as in Time magazine's recent global warming issue, to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," but the truth is that our environmental progress has been substantially improving, and we should be very pleased."

    I generally try to be truthful in my presentation and MPO of Gore and his ilk is that they are liars, they twist facts and statistics and cannot be trusted to tell the truth or represent the masses in a fair and impartial way.

    If you hurry you can still get a ticket to the slide show before they are all sold out. All proceeds go to the, I love Al so help me get to the UN fan club. Factiousness implied.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18526

    “The NRDC declared, "The world's leading scientists now agree that global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions."

    Scary, eh? One huge volcanic eruption could do this. As to the weather, it is the very definition of chaos and has been for billions of years.

    The good news is that leading climatologists and meteorologists are actively debunking this nonsense. One of them, Dr. F. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, is in the forefront.

    He debunks a June 7 statement issued by several national academies of sciences just before Britain's Tony Blair arrived for talks with President Bush, saying, "The Statement simply regurgitates the contentious conclusions of the (UN) International Panel on Climate Change report of 2001, which has been disputed by credible scientists. The so-called scientific consensus is pure fiction."


    The IPCC is a United Nations program and we all know that the UN is ever so fair in all that they do, why right out of their own mouths we read “We recognize the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate changes and its causes.” Thank you IPCC for your vote of confidence in yourself. Pretty amazing stuff when we can’t predict the weather more that two days in advance.

    Oh wouldn’t you know that not American institution is represented on the IPCC Academy of Sciences, perhaps all they want is our money after all each country needs to anti up 10 billion for further research. Maybe Al is hoping the UN will remember that he said in his UN speech Jan. 10, 2000 I quote” by seeking a common agreement to openly recognize a powerful new truth that has been growing just beneath the surface of every human heart: it is time to change the nature of the way we live together on this planet. From this new vantage point, we must forge and follow a new agenda for world security, an agenda that includes: The global environmental challenge, which could render all our other progress meaningless, unless we deal with it successfully.” I would have never known our security was tied to our global environment if Al had not told the truth. Thank you Al

    Should we forget the Exxon Valdese “it will take a century to remove results of this tragedy from our shores” and three years later the results of the accident disappeared my how time flies when you are having fun. Kuwait oil wells “it will be decades before this tragedy is past” once again what happened? They, the environmentalists lied as usual.


    Need I go further Daisy?
     
  4. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gore was/is right.

    When and where? Editorial, article, review or letter to the editor? Its reporting is good but its editorials are strongly slanted and often less than fact-based.

    Date, page number, author? Citation or link?

    It's hard to make out here what the WSJ is saying and what NCPA is - you lost track of your quotation marks somewhere along the way.

    NPCA is a political organization - three of its major sponsors are Exxon Mobile, El Paso Energy and ChryslerDaimer Corp. Fund(linkie) - not scientific.

    On the contrary, Gore is known as a "boyscout" on account of his straightforwardness. He has proven himself whereas I know very little about you. Your presenting an organization dedicated to "aggressively marketing its products" as a reliable source of independent information says quite a bit about your discernment.

    Are you sure that "factiousness" means what you think it does? Because it doesn't fit.

    One "huge volcanic eruption" would have the opposite effect. You don't seem to understand much of what you're writing about.

    "Leading climatologists and meteorologists"? What is Singer's qualifications?

    "... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." (linkie)

    This one political activist in the pay of Big Oil contradicts several leading academies of science...and you find the paid shill more credible than independent academies? Again, this says quite a bit about your discernment.


    Two days, eh? Did you just make that number up? There is local weather and global weather patterns; you don't seem to be able to discern the difference.

    <snip>

    What you need to do is get your info from more than one source, consider the funding and credentials and possibly learn something about science.
     
  5. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will believe the environmental wackos when they believe their own rhetoric enough to take all the steps they want to force on us upon themselves...

    Don't force me... Lead the way... Then I'll believe.

    If it isn't dire enough for you to make the sacrifices yourself... Then shut up!

    Let *them* renounce Freon, first.

    Let *them* renounce SUV's first.

    let *them* renounce Private Jets first...

    SMM
     
  6. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    What makes you think they have not?
     
  7. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just watch any motorcade they arrive in...
     
  8. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most "environmental wackos" don't arrive in motorcades. When was the last time you actually saw one?
     
  9. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    I consider Al Gore an environmental wacko...

    And, would you like to take a poll of those that live in hot areas of the country and have sworn off the use of Freon based A/C?

    I don't see them leading the way. All I hear is a shrill cry of panic from wild eyed fanatics trying to force a rope down the road.

    If they were really leading the way I am sure I would hear more stories of how x numbers of environmentalists are moving to communes to be more efficient and reduce emmisions.

    And, just because the media doesn't publish the contrary science doesn't mean that good hard contrary scientific evidence doesn't exist...

    SMM
     
  10. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that freon-based air conditioning is outlawed by federal mandate. Other refrigerants that are more eco-friendly are required.

    As for motorcades, when he was VP, that is more of a security issue than anything else.
     
  11. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, Gore is dead on target re: global warming. The antarctic ice cap is shrinking, parts of the Arctic Ocean that once were frozen over are now open sea in the winter.

    No sane person can deny global warming. The question becomes is it mankind's work or natural cycles? Either way, there are impacts to the world.
     
  12. jereome10

    jereome10
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know if he believed in the environment as much as he says then why didnt he do something about it while he was in office?

    For instance most Americans live near major cities so why didnt Clinton / Gore try to pass laws to favor manufacturing of electric cars?

    Simple they are just like every other politicians and like pandering to those with money and that includes the oil lobby.
     
  13. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    jereome10, perhaps you don't understand how our government works - the Congress passes laws not the Executive branch.
     
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Gore is a loser, a fool, and a poor negotiator. That is, if you consider yourself pro American.
    It's hard to take him seriously.
     
  15. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daisy, Perhaps you are confusing the way our gov't is supposed to work with the way it actually does.

    Congress does not make environmental law. It gives a mandate to the EPA that then creates policies and law according to the mandate but much more according to the philosophy of the President.

    Bush is more business friendly and so you get streamlining and what most people would probably consider common sense changes to EPA policy. For instance, companies can now take an overall limit to their emissions. This allows them to install and operate equipment without alot of red tape so long as they don't exceed their limit. The limit is generally a baseline amount. IOW's, they use a particular period and set the max based on annual averages. The company must stay below that level even if they want to increase output. Good common sense rule.

    Previously, companies had to permit each and every installation of new equipment. New equipment was subject to much tighter limits than old equipment. This created a negative incentive. It was very often more economical to repair or modify old equipment that polluted more rather than attempt to meet new equipment standards.

    The Bush policy both helped industry and protected the environment. Companies under this policy can buy new equipment that will allow them to produce more with the same or lower pollution... a net plus for both the economy and environment. Many environmental whackos were/are against this policy change... more or less because they consider Republicans and industry the enemy so anything good for them is necessarily bad.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    In this nation we don't want the government to be in the business of trying to choose winners and losers among businesses. That didn't work so well in the Soviet Union.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    They did. Clinton signed numerous executive orders and some concerning the environment... to take effect after he left office. He didn't want to disturb the economy on his watch but owed some debts. It was a political ploy to make Bush look bad for reversing policies supposedly intended to help the environment.
     
  18. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Electric cars, not to be confused with hybrids, only move the polluting elements from the tailpipe to the power plant.
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is true MP unless we find more hydroelectric, solar, or wind resources. I wonder if we could actually erect enough windmills to effect the global climate? Could we build enough solar panels to change the global temperature?
     
  20. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good questions, Scott. With the good old Mr. Sun giving us more energy than we will ever need, we should be looking at ways to tap that free energy to power our needs.
     

Share This Page

Loading...