Response to Al "Chicken Little" Gore

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Dos Equis
It doesn't matter MT, how many quotes or journals you bring out. Some people will say "show me one example", and then no matter what you show them - they will refute it. When you are dealing with people who bring with them the Exxon funded counterspin, and say things like the EPA are just green wackos, then you are dealing with dittohead wingnuts. You can't reason with them.

I've figured that out and moved on. So have a lot of other people. These forums have a certain demographic that seems to prevail. Best stick to playing AH and let them have their Gore and Hillary jokes, while they bury their head about climate change and miss all the economic opportunities around exploring alternative fuels.

Spot on, XX, spot on.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by lazs2

The "opportunities" are in reality.... the fleecing of the sheep.

lazs

Well I must admit that I`ve been pretty tied up salting horsemeat, mending broken ribs, ignoring lame "oil sensor" PMs, planting mystical magical forests with robotic, magicaly appearing machinery, turning down requests to speak at roadside cafe meetings in Qatar, propping up the sky with organicaly grown timber harvested with non-fuel usage machinery........all the while milking 35 cows.
I haven`t had much spare time to spend on this thread, but to borrow a few words from an environmentalist shcolar and climatic scientist, Larry The Cable Guy........."That there is a true statement. I don`t care who you are."

[lukster]

I still take the Sunday paper (Dallas morning news) though I threaten to quit even that every Sunday. Front page today, and a couple more pages, all about air pollution. The article(s) go on about how even though we have made gains in cars polluting less individually, we are driving more which does more than negate the gains made. The writer seemed to be pretty sore that people would not accept no driving days based on license plate number. Of course no where in the article is it mentioned that one reason we drive more is that there are a lot more of us driving now. Nor is it mentioned that a very large percentage of us driving have no right to even be in this country, much less driving old cars which tend to pollute more.

There was also a full page article on the evils of the new sport pilot license.

I've cancelled my subscription before. If it weren't for the "funnies" I'd never take this socialist rag again.

[Bronk]

Snip

Originally posted by Dos Equis
When you are dealing with people who bring with them the Exxon funded counterspin,

And there in lies the rub.

Counterspin
What do you do when you see a group spinning a report to fit there agenda.
That's right ya  spin up some of your own.
The truth is in this spin some place. But damn if ya can find it in all the bias.



Bronk

[AWMac]

"The World is Flat and it's getting warmer. Anything Nash says is right because Like me, He is a True American."
*Bought and paid for by the I'mALumberJackandI'mOkay Foundation*



Mac


or


"Free Prostrate Exams, Help Fight Global Warming!"

[Dos Equis]

Originally posted by lazs2
Yep... nothing wrong with "exploring alternative fuels"  that is the way it should be.

In the meantime... governments have created nothing except sink holes for tax money.  They have slowed/stoped  the building of nuke power plants.... they have stopped the exploration of oil to make us less dependent on foriegn oil...  They have mandated junk science environmental laws that have often caused grave harm to the environment or... done nothing... they have created endangered species lists that are 90% insects.

lazs

There it is, then. A distrust of government and regulation, to the point of reducing things to absurdity.

I happen to think that things like the Clean Water Act in '77 (http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fwatrpo.html) and the clean air act - mainly in 1990 with amendments in 97 (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa03.html) have radically improved the fishing and waterways of the country. So have technological improvements in filtering harmful chemicals.

Do you guys think the events in Erin Brockovich didn't actually happen? Do you think Monsanto didn't actually cause massive cancer and birth defects across an entire generation of the people of Anniston, Alabama? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_Defendant)

If warming is due to CO2, and there can be regulation or free market solutions to clean the air - shouldn't we try and promote them? Saying that we can't impact industry is the same argument that big oil and big chemical use against ALL regulation.

For all of you who have benefited from clean fishing lakes and well water that didn't make your kids sick, you have some form of regulation to thank for this. The old saying is that a republican is just a democrat that hasn't needed a trial lawyer yet, is probably true. What confounds me is the level of rhetoric against a film that doesnt say Katrina was caused by global warming, doesn't even insinuate it, doesn't do anything but point out that rising planetary temps and ice cap melting will raise the ocean levels and that may have some effect 20-40 years from now.

I guess with over 44% of the American public thinking that the rapture will occur within THEIR lifetimes, nobody cares anymore. Thankfully for us, people in 1977 and 1990 at the EPA thought 'hey, maybe the planet does need some protection'.

Since I don't know any milionares (personally) who play AH, I would suspect most people here count as the little guy. I wonder sometimes why they purposely rail against anything which is in their interest. Books have been written about the 'gun rack Republicans', guys who consistently vote against their own financial and health well being. Wake up and at least LOOK who is behind the research on your side. And ask yourself, are these guys looking out for people like me?

[lukster]

Originally posted by Bronk
The truth is in this spin some place. But damn if ya can find it in all the bias.

Bronk

Or, the truth might really be out there, waaaay out there.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Dos Equis
There it is, then. A distrust of government and regulation, to the point of reducing things to absurdity.

Yes, XX - you're finding it too! My phrase for it is "reverse dogmatism". Whereas a dogmatist discovers material which he then presents as irrefutable fact, the Reverse Dogmatists - guys like Lazs and Jackal - do the reverse: They take material presented by others, dismiss it out of hand (if they think it's likely to affect their personal lifestyles), and then go in search of a justification for their rebuttal.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, XX - you're finding it too! My phrase for it is "reverse dogmatism". Whereas a dogmatist discovers material which he then presents as irrefutable fact, the Reverse Dogmatists - guys like Lazs and Jackal - do the reverse: They take material presented by others, dismiss it out of hand (if they think it's likely to affect their personal lifestyles), and then go in search of a justification for their rebuttal.

Then there are the Imbusychasingmyowntaledogmas-->Beet.
There is another phrase for it, but you get the mental picture.

[lazs2]

dos ekk....  nice try.   First you assume that rising co2 levels are the sole or main "cause" of global warming even tho it would take a doubling of Co2 levels and 100 years to rais temps even 1 degree (all else staying the same... which it won't) and... that the highest levels of Co2 in history have been after a global warming and during a cooling cycle...

Then... you assume that the man made portion.... a pitiful 2-4% is gonna change anything.  

Clean water and air acts have had many charlatons involved and junk science.... the clean air smog rules of the 70's made things worse till computer controlled fuel injection and catalytic converters were invented by.... private industry.

To simply regulate Co2 with no sight of how it could be done would be to repeat the mistakes of the 70's smog laws.

MTBE is the kind of thing we get when we give big brother too much control in junk science spawned regulation....Talk about your polluted waterways!

And lastly.... gun rack republicans?   Well partner... If gun control is the only thing that keeps us from voting for the liberal socialist democrat party...

Then why do democrats all try so hard to destroy the second amendment?  surely if they had our interests at heart they would allow us to be armed if we chose?    Or maybe.... gun control is just one aspect of a party that is...

All about control and knowing more about what is good for you than you do?

Maybe us "gun rack republicans" just resent your whole "we know what's best for you attitude."

Tell me.... if it hurts the liberal socialist democrats so much and so many of their supporters are against the platform.... why do democrats support gun control so much?   What is the reason that they would shoot themselves in the foot (so to speak) over it?

lazs

[indy007]

Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, XX - you're finding it too! My phrase for it is "reverse dogmatism". Whereas a dogmatist discovers material which he then presents as irrefutable fact, the Reverse Dogmatists - guys like Lazs and Jackal - do the reverse: They take material presented by others, dismiss it out of hand (if they think it's likely to affect their personal lifestyles), and then go in search of a justification for their rebuttal.

Catch 22 beet. Any material that is posted, and receives a well thought out refutation, is labeled evil b00sh hitler greedy capitalist spin.

Not sure how it is on your side of the pond.. problem with the environmental movement here was it was hijacked a long time ago by the anti-capitalist movement. Now it's about political agendas, the evilness of boosh and corporate explotation. Sad reality is, 99% of the people there don't know what they're talking about, and loudly protest against solutions to some of the very things they're trying to fix.

[beet1e]

Yes Indy, that probably sums it up. As you suggest, it's very different over here. The global warming issue isn't political. It's recognised as a problem across the political spectrum.

[lukster]

I haven't seen nor am I likey to see Al Gore's movie. However, there's no lack of sensationalistic, sky-is-falling, fear mongering, some of which I do see and hear. The question is, is the boy crying wolf yet again? Maybe we'll all be eaten by the wolf this time around but that's a chance I'm willing to take to avoid jumping through hoops every time he yells. Of course I am watching the wolf crier and listening to his story, just not convinced, yet.

[indy007]

Originally posted by beet1e
Yes Indy, that probably sums it up. As you suggest, it's very different over here. The global warming issue isn't political. It's recognised as a problem across the political spectrum.

Ahh, then you're more screwed then we are. Politicans can't do anything right.

[Dos Equis]

Originally posted by lazs2
dos ekk....  nice try.   First you assume that rising co2 levels are the sole or main "cause" of global warming even tho it would take a doubling of Co2 levels and 100 years to rais temps even 1 degree

Then... you assume that the man made portion.... a pitiful 2-4% is gonna change anything.  

Then why do democrats all try so hard to destroy the second amendment?  surely if they had our interests at heart they would allow us to be armed if we chose?    Or maybe.... gun control is just one aspect of a party that is...

lazs

You're like the Pink Floyd song, Us and Them.

Point 1, I said "If warming is due to CO2". Go look. read it again. But there seems to be scientific consensus that the greenhouse effect is real. As for the rest of your assertions, that curbnig emissions would do nothing, etc etc. At this point, as many have stated, it's not about reversing the effect, it's about mitigating the severity. As for your "science" behind 1 degree, let's shelf that until you can point at your research. In fact, don't. There's another graph filled thread if you want to do that.

AS for the 2nd amendment gun control troll. Open a new thread if you want to discuss gun control.

Let's stay on point. Most people haven't seen Gore's film, instead they choose to bash it and cite counterspin funded by big oil and big chemical. These companies really aren't in business to make the rural areas and wetlands of the USA nice places to live. The runoff from chicken and pig **** plus chemicals make the Arkansas river one of the most polluted on earth. Why would you bash Gore's film with Exxon funded FUD without at least LOOKING to see what you are saying, and even if you are representing what's good for YOU.