Gore's global warming movie

[KRC]

You think Al Gore would have attacked a third world despot while his neighbor enriches uranium, at the cost of about half a trillion (so far)?

697770[/snapback]

 

No. He would have done the same as Clinton and gave Iran the technology they needed and then bribe them to keep quiet so that he can sweep it under the rug and have someone else take care of the problem (ala DPRK).

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You think Al Gore would have attacked a third world despot while his neighbor enriches uranium, at the cost of about half a trillion (so far)?

697770[/snapback]

 

No, he would have sat in the Oval office with his thumb up his ass...

 

He'd probably be more concrned about the hole in the ozone layer than any kind of foreign policy.

 

Al Gore < Jimmy Carter

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You think Al Gore would have attacked a third world despot while his neighbor enriches uranium, at the cost of about half a trillion (so far)?

697770[/snapback]

 

No, he wouldn't have done anything about either.

 

Unless you're postulating that Gore would make MAJOR changes to Clinton's "foreign policy" (for example: having one), Gore would have been just as much a foreign policy disaster as Clinton was. On strictly foreign policy grounds, the simple fact that Gore was Clinton's VP was enough to discredit his abilities.

[John Adams]

No, he would have sat in the Oval office with his thumb up his ass...

 

He'd probably be more concrned about the hole in the ozone layer than any kind of foreign policy.

 

Al Gore < Jimmy Carter

697855[/snapback]

 

Yeah. Attacking Iraq<<<<<[worse]<<<<sitting "in the Oval office with his thumb up his ass."

 

I'd rather Bush had his thumb up his ass on Iraq than the present cluster.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yeah. Attacking Iraq<<<<<[worse]<<<<sitting "in the Oval office with his thumb up his ass."

 

I'd rather Bush had his thumb up his ass on Iraq than the present cluster.

697869[/snapback]

 

On Iraq. What about North Korea or Iran or Pakistan or India or China or Indonesia or the EU or Mexico or...?

 

(And please don't forget, as everyone usually does, that I was against the invasion of Iraq to begin with.)

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yeah. Attacking Iraq<<<<<[worse]<<<<sitting "in the Oval office with his thumb up his ass."

 

I'd rather Bush had his thumb up his ass on Iraq than the present cluster.

697869[/snapback]

 

OOOH that's right. It's better to do NOTHING about a lousy situation than try to resolve it. Gotcha.

[RuntheDamnBall]

OOOH that's right. It's better to do NOTHING about a lousy situation than try to resolve it. Gotcha.

697875[/snapback]

If trying to resolve it involves going forward without much of a plan for it, then, yes, doing nothing might indeed be better.

 

Or, what the hell, maybe even getting more people behind the plan first might have been a good idea. But I'm not willing to go down the road this argument leads to again.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Or, what the hell, maybe even getting more people behind the plan first might have been a good idea.  But I'm not willing to go down the road this argument leads to again.

697887[/snapback]

 

That's just delusional. Getting more people behind a plan to unilaterally invade a soverign nation without provocation to commit us to a lengthy rebuilding process in a region that fundamentally hates us?

 

You really think the problem with that idea was that not enough people supported it?

[RuntheDamnBall]

That's just delusional.  Getting more people behind a plan to unilaterally invade a soverign nation without provocation to commit us to a lengthy rebuilding process in a region that fundamentally hates us? 

 

You really think the problem with that idea was that not enough people supported it? 

697911[/snapback]

Sorry, I didn't mean our specific "plan" there. I meant behind the initiative to "do something," as JSP suggests.

[Johnny Coli]

Big Oil and those beholden to them (BushCo™) would be ecstatic to see a thread like this get bogged down in politics and the global warming issue to be perceived as a “Gore” political platform. They also like to trot out the ludicrous notion picked up by many here that global warming is a controversial topic with much debate going on in the scientific community. In fact, the scientific community is essentially unanimous with regards to the human impact contributing to global warming.

 

From Science Magazine:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

 

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

 

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 

Big Oil is so intent on muddying up the waters, that they have begun a smear campaign in the media to discredit Gore's movie:

They trot out lackeys who make absurd assertions.

If I thought Al Gore's movie was as you like to say, fair and balanced, I'd say, everyone should go see it, but why go see propaganda? You don't go see Joseph Goebbels’' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't go see Al Gore’' films to see the truth about global warming...

They use front groups to call global warming "alarmist."

“It is nothing short of an attempt to suppress energy use, which in turn would be economically devastating—all to avert an alleged catastrophe whose scientific basis is dubious.”

They release videos of their own (videos that really are propaganda).

From video #1:

"And as for carbon dioxide, It isn't smog or smoke. It’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in.

Carbon dioxide.

They call it pollution. We call it life."

 

From video #2:

"There’s something in these pictures you can’t see.

[snip]

It’s called carbon dioxide---CO2.

[snip]

Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant.

Imagine if they succeed. What would our lives be like then?

Carbon dioxide.

They call it pollution. We call it life."

 

Dubya doubts he'll see the film, then tosses another rock into the swamp with the tangential remark that we shouldn't worry about putting out the house that's currently on fire, we should be thinking about a newer, really bitchin' house that we haven't built yet with materials we don't even have.

"We need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and, at the same time, protect the environment," the president said.

Right on, Dear Leader! Why get bogged down debating "stuff" with those lefty eggheads that make you feel inferior?

 

They've politicized, demonized and flat-out lied about something that, if acted upon, will hurt them in their wallets. Despite what they would have you believe, there is no debate in the scientific community and it's not a "crazy Al Gore" thing. Resorting to smear tactics, obscuring the truth, and ignoring science that doesn't support your point of view should tell you all you need to know about those who refer to global warming as the product of junk science.

[erynthered]

"The truth about "global warming" is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think."

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/p...t/?id=110008416

 

 

But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

 

When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:

 

• The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.

 

• The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

 

• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute.

 

• Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs."

 

Environmentally speaking, America has had a very good third of a century; the economy has grown and pollutants and their impacts upon society are substantially down.

 

More on Gore:

 

The man's shamelessness is astounding when he compares himself to Churchill, but that's not the worst of it. The final shot of Gore shows him bravely silhouetted against the cosmos, a lone figure tenderly surveying the firmament. The job he really wants, no recount can give him.

 

http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm

[RuntheDamnBall]

"The truth about "global warming" is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think."

698061[/snapback]

Really? Awesome, then there's no problem! Fire up the Hummer so we can drive across the street to spread the news to our friends!

[erynthered]

Really?  Awesome, then there's no problem!  Fire up the Hummer so we can drive across the street to spread the news to our friends!

698066[/snapback]

 

 

Its from the article. Though, you probably didn't notice " ".

[Johnny Coli]

"The truth about "global warming" is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/p...t/?id=110008416

698061[/snapback]

 

 

The author of that article is the chairman of the thinktank that produced that study, the National Center for Policy Analysis.

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American public policy research organization, funded by ExxonMobil.

Nice try, though.

[erynthered]

The author of that article is the chairman of the thinktank that produced that study, the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Nice try, though. 

698077[/snapback]

 

 

I forgot, ExxonMobil is the evil empire.

 

Do you think any funding by over zealot loonies goes to any research, to support their side of the argument?

 

 

Dog chasing tail, gotta go.........

[RuntheDamnBall]

Its from the article. Though, you probably didn't notice " ".

698071[/snapback]

I did notice. You did choose to post it for a reason, no?

[finknottle]

Who cares if global warming is man-made or not? The climate is changing, and at an accelerating rate - debate that if you want. Arguing about whether man is causing it or too many flatulant cows is nothing but a distraction.

 

I sometimes think that it is the conservative position that if a giant meteor were screaming down on the earth, the decision to do anything about it would hing entirely on whether we could prove it was caused by NASA.

[Alaska Darin]

Who cares if global warming as man-made or not?  That argument is nothing but a distraction.  The climate is changing at an accelerating rate.

 

I sometimes think that it is the conservative position that if a giant meteor were screaming down on the earth, the decision to do anything about it would hing entirely on whether we could prove it was caused by NASA.

698093[/snapback]

As opposed to the liberal's "how can we spin this to start another program to add to our base?"

 

I don't disagree that we need to be better stewards of the land but the Democrats are just as bad as those they point fingers at. The obstructionism that has been going on in this country for the last 40 years is criminal and holding Al "I got rich from Occidental Petroleum" Gore up as a poster child is ludicrous.

[VABills]

Who cares if global warming as man-made or not?  That argument is nothing but a distraction.  The climate is changing at an accelerating rate.

 

I sometimes think that it is the conservative position that if a giant meteor were screaming down on the earth, the decision to do anything about it would hing entirely on whether we could prove it was caused by NASA.

698093[/snapback]

No the conservative position would be to do something about it, and then have to defend the decision for the next 5 years as the liberals botch that the poor metoer wasn't really going to hit the earth, and that the conservatives have screwed up the alignment of the planets and pissed on the Venetians because of our rash attack on the "misunderstood" meteor.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Who cares if global warming as man-made or not?  That argument is nothing but a distraction.  The climate is changing at an accelerating rate.

 

I sometimes think that it is the conservative position that if a giant meteor were screaming down on the earth, the decision to do anything about it would hing entirely on whether we could prove it was caused by NASA.

698093[/snapback]

 

Ludicrous. The distinction between global warming being a natural vs. man-made event is very important, as it tells you not just how you can address it, but whether or not you actually can address it.