Response to Al "Chicken Little" Gore

[Nash]

Absolutely, Holden.

Who is most guilty of that? (we're going to disagree)

So lets nevermind that for a second. Lets instead break it down.

The Democrats acknowledge an impact, based on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, and aim to mitigate the impact, whilst not reducing everyone to something even close to cavemen.

Nothing freaky. Just.... responsible stewardship. Something resembling conservatism.

So again, what's the Conservatives' take?

[midnight Target]

This needs to be hashed out in the journals, not in the political arena. And no one on this board has the expertise to make the call one way or the other.

[Mini D]

Let me tell you a little story from work, Nash, that I think will help explain why things are so divided right now.

We have storm drains in the middle of our campus. These drains are closely monitored by the DEQ for any kind of chemicals. Any chemical hits those drains and a serious fine is levied against us. We also have alot of structures on our site that birds like to nest in. Birds are commonly reffered to as "crap makers" and are glad to show their tallent on any sidewalk available. We have sidewalks and walls litterally coated with bird crap. We can't wash it off because that will then go down the drain and get into the water table and we'll get fined for it. We'll get find for washing off bird crap.

I look at what restrictions we have and what we have to tolerate on a corperate level and then I go into a home depot and look at the paint thinner/paint stripper section and understand the view of republicans much better. The restrictions we put on corperations greatly outweigh any restrictions put on private citizens. I've only seen one community where there was any kind of parity (Boise, Idaho where they banned burning wood in a woodstove to prevent smog during inversions).

The chemicals going into the Willamette river right now are predominantly contributed by homehowners in both raw sewage and chemical use/disposal (detergents, chemicals, fuel, draino, whatever). But we still choose to believe that big buisness is responsible for all of our polution.

The republicans want less panic because that costs big buisness money and it's not healthy for the economy. Democrats want panic because it shows the need for big government. Two sides of the fence are created.

I'm for big buisness being kept in check because I know that the only reason our waste water at work is so clean right now is because of restrictions. I'd like there to be more common sense used in making some of the decions, though.

I don't think there's any real reason to disallow drilling in the Alaskan tundra for the sake of "pristineness". Let the state regulate this.

I don't think that there needs to be an increase in restrictions on industrial emissions right now (enough already).

[Yeager]

the republican point of view, I think, is to maintain the integrity of the national economy as it comes under constant and unrelenting attack from the economies of europe/asia/UN who promote the junk science of global warming (Kyoto Accords) in order to confuse and panic people like Algore, hoping that there will eventually be enough of people like Algore to derail the western economies allowing the competing economies of europe/asia/UN to gain the upper hand and control the western economies for maximum profit and outright control.

[Mr Big]

Nash, which Dems do you most admire for their work on saving the environment?

How does John Kerry or Ted Kennedy rank, in your book?

[Mr Big]

Originally posted by Nash

The Democrats acknowledge an impact, based on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, and aim to mitigate the impact, whilst not reducing everyone to something even close to cavemen.

 

Which Democrats? Which Democrats actually walk the talk? Can you list any prominent Dems who actually lead by example?

I don't see any of the big Dems cutting down on their impact on the environment.

Ted Kennedy pretty much shut down the windmills in his backyard, because.....well, it's in his backyard. It's okay if SOMONE else has them in their backyard though.

Kerry said that "earth day" is not something that should be observed one day a year, rather it should be a lifestyle. Yet Kerry has twp private jets, a yatch, and a few houses he keeps cooled and heated.......while not living in them.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Mini D
I'd like there to be more common sense used in making some of the decisions, though.

Common sence in Portland?

[Nash]

Great anecdote Deja.... (really).

I'm gonna cut right to the gist, because you're the only one who seems to want to broach the subject:

Originally posted by Mini D
The republicans want less panic because that costs big buisness money and it's not healthy for the economy. Democrats want panic because it shows the need for big government. Two sides of the fence are created.

I can easily understand why "big business" would want the government off its back - free to do whatever it wants. So we're good here, it's a no-brainer.

I'm a bit less certain when it comes to your explanation of the Democratic point of view. You say:

"Democrats want panic because it shows the need for big government."

Democrats want big government for..... erhm.... big government's sake?

I know how much "Big Government" is ingrained into people's heads wrt Democrats, but it, like your example, says nothing. And if we want a real lesson on big government all we have to do is bone up on this administration.

If you had said "Democrats want panic because it shows the need for big government in order to... blah blah blah" or something....  that'd help.

Right now, all you're giving me is that Democrats are fools for lending an ear to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in order for them to be, somehow, big government.... for, no appearent reason.

Your whole "motive" thing is absent.

.... and it doesn't make any sense to me.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Mr Big
Which Democrats? Which Democrats actually walk the talk? Can you list any prominent Dems who actually lead by example?

I don't see any of the big Dems cutting down on their impact on the environment.

Ted Kennedy pretty much shut down the windmills in his backyard, because.....well, it's in his backyard. It's okay if SOMONE else has them in their backyard though.

Kerry said that "earth day" is not something that should be observed one day a year, rather it should be a lifestyle. Yet Kerry has twp private jets, a yatch, and a few houses he keeps cooled and heated.......while not living in them.

If they wanted to live like normal people they wouldn't be politicians.

[Maverick]

Yep absolutely correct. Global warming is all the fault of people, using oil, burning wood and smoking tobacco. Now please, let me know if the previous statement is true, who the **** is responsible for all the other periods of global cooling and warming that seemed to happen wouthout those nasty industrialized humans around? I've heard a claim that industrialized man is making the globe warm up "faster". Uh who timed the last 2 global warming events that ended the previous ice ages? Where is the data on them and how fast did it happen back then?

[Nash]

'xcuse me Maverick, but y'all need to get on the same page....

On the one hand, Clifra Jones here is saying:

"You must realize that it is waste of time to argue with religious zealots. They will not listen to anything that deviates from their religious dogma or contradicts their High Priests of Environmental Doom."

And on the other....

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

And yet, on the other hand the real "religious zealots" are claiming that the earth was only formed just six million years ago.

So.... that leaves us with the bizarre spectacle of a group of people branding those concerned about the world we inhabit "religious zealots," using supporting data that dates back to hundreds of millions of years ago, while at the same time taking it on faith that the world was created a mere 6 million years ago.

Someone didn't read the memo....

[Mr Big]

Nash, maybe all you have to do is read a little more.

The truth is out there.........as far  humans have been able to record it through time. All you have to do is read a little.

The earth's climate has changed frequently and dramatically, before man even existed.

Don't be such a dummy.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Mr Big
Nash, maybe all you have to do is read a little more. All you have to do is read a little. Don't be such a dummy.

Duh.... what is this "read" you speak of...?

Thanks for the advice, Einstein.

[Holden McGroin]

You know, Einstein wasn't so bright.

It's I before E and he got it wrong twice in his own name.

[Nash]

lol, I had to google the spelling, and even then I had to backspace over the natural inclination to put "I" before "E."