Response to Al "Chicken Little" Gore

[lukster]

Originally posted by Dos Equis
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.

Just because we haven't seen seen his film does not mean we don't know him. Like Michael Moore, I don't have to see all of his crap to know that it is all crap.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lukster
Just because we haven't seen seen his film does not mean we don't know him. Like Michael Moore, I don't have to see all of his crap to know that it is all crap.

I see so many AH debates like this. The decision has been made already....

Reminds me of yet another of the global warming threads in which rotax (shades - don't know his real ID) was asking someone about a particular book, but wanted to know "what side it came down on" before he would commit to buying it. In other words, people only want to watch a film or read a book - if that book or movie is going to tell them what they want to hear.

[indy007]

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.

See Beet! This is exactly what I meant. I could explain to him how a greenhouse actually works, and why "greenhouse" gasses function NOTHING like a real greenhouse... but it won't help. Any type of ability to debunk anything he says was blown out in his first paragraph. Look carefully at what he just said... agriculture runoff is now why the Arkansas river is nasty. Therefore, it's Exxon's fault for disseminating disinformation to bash Al Gore. I geuss we gotta shutdown those evil, corporate farmers?

Telling somebody they should switch to hydrogen, biodeisel, hybrids... I'm all for it. I full plan on micro-generating my own power with a combination of wind & solar when I build a house. Bio-alturism is a good thing. However, telling people that industry needs to be taxed and punished, when their combined effect in the next 100 years is equivelent to less than a 4% change in local humidity... that's just shennanigans.

[lukster]

Originally posted by beet1e
I see so many AH debates like this. The decision has been made already....

Reminds me of yet another of the global warming threads in which rotax (shades - don't know his real ID) was asking someone about a particular book, but wanted to know "what side it came down on" before he would commit to buying it. In other words, people only want to watch a film or read a book - if that book or movie is going to tell them what they want to hear.

Come on now, do you really expect us to pay money to see yet another global warming disaster movie that's probably not the least bit entertaining since it's made by a politician? Tell ya what, send me 20 bucks (gotta have popcorn afterall) and I'll go see it.

[Yeager]

we need to find a way to transform algore into clean burning energy.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by lukster
Not all, if even most, of Christians believe the earth to be only 6,000 years old. If it makes you feel superior to lump us all together then please enjoy your own blind fundamentalism.

Unless you consider yourself a Fundimentalist I did not LUMP you together with them. If you are feeling LUMPED then the LUMPING was done only by you.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Unless you consider yourself a Fundimentalist I did not LUMP you together with them. If you are feeling LUMPED then the LUMPING was done only by you.

Fundamentalist has so many different meanings that use of the word is painting with a pretty broad brush.

[Clifra Jones]

Question for Nash and MT.

Are you voting to approve the next nuclear power plant to be built in your regions?

It's clean, cheap, non-puluting, non-CO2 making power.

I don't wan't to put words in your mouths but I just have a feeling how you'd vote.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by lukster
Fundamentalist has so many different meanings that use of the word is painting with a pretty broad brush.

No, I think if you subscribe to the belief that the Bible (a book written, edited and compiled by men) is truth down to the last dotted I and crost T. then I would say your a fundimentalist.

[lazs2]

dos ekk... you brought up gun control not me... it was right after your re4ligion bashing (also off topic) paragraph.

You are the one who brought up gun control as the reason we aren't all supporting the liberal socialist democrats..... all us... non millionare "little guys".   What crap.

And yes... it is "us against them" their very existence depends on leach like sucking.

But you did say "if co2 is causing global warming"  Sooo... I guess we can agree that until we are sure that it is AND that the man made portion is significant enough to do something about it...

That we will agree that we don't need to do anything about this particular boogey man except watch the studies and check their accuracy?

I don't need to fund any "excieting new programs" with my hard earned tax money to give opprotunities to millionaires... I'm a "little guy" remember?

lazs

[Dos Equis]

Originally posted by lazs2
dos ekk... you brought up gun control not me... it was right after your re4ligion bashing (also off topic) paragraph.

You are the one who brought up gun control as the reason we aren't all supporting the liberal socialist democrats..... all us... non millionare "little guys".   What crap.
lazs

The term "gun rack republican" is not a term meant to denote anything about one's right to bear arms. I may as well have said "NASCAR-dad republicans". It's meant to highlight a demographic. Guys who like to hunt and fish, who live south of the Mason-Dixon line, and who get royally screwed by Republican policy over the long haul but continue to see the Democrats as weak-knee liberals out to tax and spend them to death.

See:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0715/p01s02-uspo.html

(It doesn't conflict with any of your beliefs, and it was written by a Christian newspaper, so it's ok to read laze)

It's mostly social issues like gay marriage that the Republicans have capitalized on. And being big business friendly is seen as helpful to the employees who tend more to tow their employer's line for them.

Back to the thread topic - you don't want to know that Europe and pretty much everywhere else has agreed that global warming is real, what causes it, and what the effects might be. To you guys, it's a boogeyman used by liberals to scare Congress into large appropriations meant to give to pot smokin hippes to think about alternative fuel. Whatever. I could care less. THe new Avalanche from Chevy runs of E85, I guess you guys will switch to Fords now.

Meanwhile, the real scientists that are off-payroll so to speak, the ones who supported Kyoto - will look at what effects rising temps might have on crop production, shoreline erosion and other stuff worth researching. And maybe, just maybe - when it gets realy bad - there might be some curbs on fossil fuel emissions. Because sometimes regulation is good and gives economic incentive to invent technology where none existed before.

But you guys hate that. Free market, lasseiz faire - don't tread on me - I'm proud to love Jesus and the flag, in that order - you guys go ahead and keep thinking that this is all bull****. Sing a hymn and pray for us sinners out here, the ones who would like to preserve the planet for future generations.

And to anyone reading this outside the States: not everyone IN the States is so stupid as to not see what is going on. We're just massively outnumbered by people who can't spell exciting.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
No, I think if you subscribe to the belief that the Bible (a book written, edited and compiled by men) is truth down to the last dotted I and crost T. then I would say your a fundimentalist.

I agree that is one use of the word, maybe even the most common. There are others who ascribe it to some that take different parts or even any part at all literally, for example the virgin birth of Christ.

[GreenCloud]

AL GORE SAYS

“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."


An “over representation of factual representations?”  Not only is he admitting there are lies in his new movie, but he is saying it is okay as long as it is for a good cause.  Don’t let the facts get in the way of you Incontinent Truth.


Ya...global warming...man is bad..Buuusch is satan

[Dos Equis]

Originally posted by indy007
See Beet! This is exactly what I meant. I could explain to him how a greenhouse actually works, and why "greenhouse" gasses function NOTHING like a real greenhouse... but it won't help. Any type of ability to debunk anything he says was blown out in his first paragraph. Look carefully at what he just said... agriculture runoff is now why the Arkansas river is nasty. Therefore, it's Exxon's fault for disseminating disinformation to bash Al Gore. I geuss we gotta shutdown those evil, corporate farmers?

Telling somebody they should switch to hydrogen, biodeisel, hybrids... I'm all for it. I full plan on micro-generating my own power with a combination of wind & solar when I build a house. Bio-alturism is a good thing. However, telling people that industry needs to be taxed and punished, when their combined effect in the next 100 years is equivelent to less than a 4% change in local humidity... that's just shennanigans.

You're right, it's the Illinois river.

http://www.argentco.com/htm/f20060508.377356.htm

I would like to smack some regulation down on Tyson farms, if I could get past the fact they own every elected official in the state of Arkansas. So much so that Oklahoma had to do the suin'.

As for the rest, when you equated tax with punishment - you said everything we needed to know.

[lukster]

Over-represenation of factual presentations??? He must have let Bill write that.