An Inconvenient Truth

[OTBn]

abrasive, negative? If someone postures that they're quoting from an independent source, "not a right wing source"... under the guise of an opinion editorial, from a staunch right wing conservative..... well, I will certainly point out the stated inaccuracy.

... and I have little time for an author that trumpets the "Reagan won the cold war" mantra.

 

[Mr.O]

So now your an Elitist!

abrasive, negative? If someone postures that they're quoting from an independent source, "not a right wing source"... under the guise of an opinion editorial, from a staunch right wing conservative..... well, I will certainly point out the stated inaccuracy.

... and I have little time for an author that trumpets the "Reagan won the cold war" mantra.

Don't have time to read & refute, just say "I have little time for" this or that & because your so elevated above the rest of us no further comment is necessary!

"Reagan won the cold war"
It's a FACT - - OTBn

You're welcome to try & refute that.

Personally, I would think that you would tire of embarrassing yourself on a public forum like this.
.

 

[citylover]

You can rub my nose in it if Gore doesn't run for the nomination.

I hardly need validation from a politician to know the corporate line is a bunch of bullshit.

ohh, & "Reagan won the cold war" is as dumb as "We gots to win in Vietnam otherwise the Vietnamese will be in California" line. That one turned out to be true too, by your reasoning.

Y'all are HILARIOUS!

 

[Mr.O]

For God sakes man...

I hardly need validation from a politician to know the corporate line is a bunch of bullshit.

ohh, & "Reagan won the cold war" is as dumb as "We gots to win in Vietnam otherwise the Vietnamese will be in California" line. That one turned out to be true too, by your reasoning.

Y'all are HILARIOUS!

Get an education!

It's not even open for debate dude, leftwing, right wing, former communists & EVERY encyclopedia I've looked in, ALL concur, it is a matter of history!

Your wishful thinking doesn’t change that!

Please, don't talk like that, everyone will think you’re a DOLT!

 

[citylover]

You can shout all you want, it doesn't make you any less foolish.

The Soviet Union was just rotten from the inside, they couldn't even make a decent TV set or a computer. The BS from the right wing nuts about the Commie threat was no different from the BS about weapons of mass delusion. But I guess Lincoln was right, you can fool some of the people all the time.

Reagan's deficit budget busting for the little boy's toys had nuthin' to do with it.

You blowhards were right about them Viet Cong making it to the shores of the US if Vietnam fell, though, go down the Santa Monica or San Diego, they're ALL OVER THE PLACE, DUDE! Why don't you drive ur SUV down there & protect the good ol' US of A from'em?

Here's a dime, go buy a clue.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

just a nomination Randy... oh look, seems Rush Limbaugh received one as well - for his "nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin."... do ya like Limpball's nomination just a little better Randy? .

If you're so smart, perhaps you can tell all of us NOW who's going to win the presidency?

Randy, Randy... do you understand what an op-ed piece is? Perhaps check out the author of that article... "not some right wing source". That's a good one Randy - LOL!.

You left wing colors are showing throgh again ot!!

blah, blah - this is soooo old news Randy. The actual case has Gore stopping the growing of tobacco after his sister died of lung cancer... and ultimately extending that to become a vocal opponent of the tobacco industry.

So its old news! Does that mean it didn't happen? Give your head a shake man.

You can shout all you want, it doesn't make you any less foolish.

The Soviet Union was just rotten from the inside, they couldn't even make a decent TV set or a computer. The BS from the right wing nuts about the Commie threat was no different from the BS about weapons of mass delusion.
Reagan's deficit budget busting for the little boy's toys had nuthin' to do with it..

Are you for real? Go get some counselling before its too late!! The fact they put the first man in space doesn't mean they had rockets which could deliver their nuclear warheads anywhere on earth. What about all the KNOWN (above ground) nuclear tests they ran for many years?

 

[citylover]

The fact they put the first man in space doesn't mean they had rockets which could deliver their nuclear warheads anywhere on earth.

exactly my point, dude. get a clue sometime.

Or are y'all just too busy trying to find them weapons of mass delusion, still?

 

[sdw]

Mr. O, it's not a fact

Michael Creighton wrote a book exposing the false presentation of data that the "Global Warming" POLITICAL movement is making.

This article talks about an scientist that they've attempted to suppress: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

This article gives an english translation of an interview of the Czech Republic President. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

There is no doubt that there is climate change. What there is doubt about is the cause.

There are things that we can easily do to assist in solving the problem no matter what the root cause is.
1. Use less Oil and Coal. That means laws that mandate the building of alternative energy cars for personal transportation, removing heavy cargos from the roadways and onto electrified railways and replacement of Coal fired electric plants with Nuclear electric plants.
2. Encourage personal energy production. The laws have to be changed so that people are encouraged and allowed to put up solar electric panels and wind turbines to provide for the energy they use. This removes the evening surge from what the utilities have to provide. Hydro Electric and Nuclear Electric production both are more efficient providing "base loads" rather than trying to respond to surges in demand.
3. Encourage the use of geothermal resources for base heating and cooling. This removes a fairly worthwhile "base load" from what the utilities have to provide.

These easily achieved things are not what is proposed by the POLITICAL movement known as GLOBAL WARMING. What they are doing is social engineering. The "Carbon Tax" is designed to move income from the "evil rich nations of the G8" to the "deserving nations". The problem is that the deserving nations seem to be the ones that don't have democratic governments, any environmental protections at all or any resources that need energy to extract.

There are a multitude of UN programs that demonstrate how little graft, how much success and how much committment we can expect. In other words this Global Warming Political movement is a project by the usual suspects to continue to have the money flow the right way. Into their pockets.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

exactly my point, dude. I'd like to get a clue sometime. But its just not in me.

You must be very young or maybe you were locked away for a long time cause you have no idea about modern (post wwII) history.

 

[CalgaryPooner]

You must be very young or maybe you were locked away for a long time cause you have no idea about modern (post wwII) history.

Randy, you are arguing a case against someone who believes in what Al Gore has to say. The man deserves your pity.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

. The man deserves your pity.

He has both my pity and my Sympathy.

 

[aznboi9]

Your abrasiveness is... matched only by your negativity.

And Randy's post was no less abrasive and negative than OBTN's? If your going criticize him for that, then you're going to have to apply the same standard to Randy.

I saw it and it was more of a Powerpoint presentation than a movie. Like I said before its part of Gore's next shot at the presidency.

I hear Al Gore has been nominated for a Nobel prize for his global warming "work".

That's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. he hasn't done a damn thing to change the climate. He does travel the world in private aircratf while lecturing the rest of us, and trying to make us feel guilty about driving our SUV's, but he hasn't changed a thing.

Well, I would say that doing the movie has changed a lot of things in terms of bringing the issue to the public. I wouldn't think that it qualifies him for a Nobel prize; but, hey, what do I know. His objective was to merely present the current science of climate change to the public in a more easily accessible manner. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that he didn't succeed in that regard. I've just done a skim of the link that john23 provided and will read in more depth later; but, for what it's worth, what I've seen seems to correlate well with what I remember seeing in the movie.

I guess making a movie (or appearing in, and pretending to make a movie while other people really do the work) and writing a book is considered "work". If it had any real impact on anything, it may be a valid argument, but Al Gore has not reduced emissions in any substantial way.

Al's greenhouse footprint is larger than most of us will ever even begin to create. He's a hypocrite who's cashing in on this issue, while burning more fossil fuels than 100 average citizens combined. he has no room whatsoever to talk.

And another thing. I'm sick and tired of being demonized about having an SUV. I have a Toyota 4Runner with 3.4 litre engine(one of the best engines ever made IMO), which has plenty of power to pull a small boat and do what I need to do.

Why so angry, Randy? I'm not too sure why, but I get the impression that you're taking this whole climate change as a personal attack on yourself. As far as I can tell, you're argument seems to boil down to:

1.Al Gore believes that there is climate change that is unlike previous episodes in past history and that this change in climate patterns is largely due to human activity.
2.Al Gore's own lifestyle is creating a “greenhouse footprint” is larger than average which makes him a hypocrite. .
3.Therefore, Al Gore is either incorrect wrt to climate change or we should not be listening to what he has to say wrt to climate change.

You're conclusion is not consistent with your argument, as far as I can figure out. If you think that he is wrong because he has misrepresented the science or because the scientists themselves have made an error in their conclusions, then I'm fine with that and welcome your evidence. But I see no point in stooping to what is, pretty much, a personal attack and an angry rant. I saw way too much of this living in the US and I can never understand why anybody would rely on that form of debate as it accomplishes nothing, IMHO.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Angry? I'm not angry. Some of the people on this thread may be but not me. My point is Gore's hypocrisy knows no bounds and most of what he says is bullshit which a lot of people appear to be buying.

In his fearmongering Powerpoint show, Al Gore claims sea levels will rise 20'. Even in the UN's worst case scenario predictions were downgraded from 2' to 1.5'.

Now we know why Al gore won't debate anybody....

Why should we believe anything Al gore has to say?

 

[citylover]

Angry shouting is all the right wing has to try and protect their fantasies when anyone actually brings up facts or logical argument to counter them.

It is like shooting fish in a barrel, tho. Very dumb fish in a very small barrel.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

No need for you and O to be Negative to be bitter and twisted. Just move on to another thread where your lack of knowledge about the topic doesn't so obviously show.

 

[aznboi9]

Angry? I'm not angry. Some of the people on this thread may be but not me. My point is Gore's hypocrisy knows no bounds and most of what he says is bullshit which a lot of people appear to be buying.

In his fearmongering Powerpoint show, Al Gore claims sea levels will rise 20'. Even in the UN's worst case scenario predictions were downgraded from 2' to 1.5'.

Did he really say that? I'm going to have to watch that again. Assuming he did say that, how about the rest of content of his movie? I still recall most of what he said being consistent with the ICPP's report.

Michael Creighton wrote a book exposing the false presentation of data that the "Global Warming" POLITICAL movement is making.

This article talks about an scientist that they've attempted to suppress: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

This article gives an english translation of an interview of the Czech Republic President. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Thanks for the first link. Here's one that was written in rebuttal. With all due respect, the second link is pretty dodgy.

 

[OTBn]

Now we know why Al gore won`t debate anybody....

Why should we believe anything Al gore has to say?

Randy, you already tried this won`t debate/interview theme... uhhh, earlier on this thread (Sourcewatch... you really should bookmark it - why continue to embarrass yourself)

can ya learn us Randy... ignore your hard-on for Gore - why not enlighten us with the science?

 

[Randy Whorewald]

why not enlighten us with the science?

Oh to be Negative- Try real hard to use some common sense for a change. I know you kin do it - but you have t try - ok!!

 

[OTBn]

Hardly Randy - simply bring the discussion back to message, not the messenger.

When I read back through this thread there's too much sniping at Gore - challenging his legitimacy, led in part by yourself. More science... less Gore sniping.

 

[sdw]

Michael Creighton wrote a book exposing the false presentation of data that the "Global Warming" POLITICAL movement is making.

This article talks about an scientist that they've attempted to suppress: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

This article gives an english translation of an interview of the Czech Republic President. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

There is no doubt that there is climate change. What there is doubt about is the cause.

There are things that we can easily do to assist in solving the problem no matter what the root cause is.
1. Use less Oil and Coal. That means laws that mandate the building of alternative energy cars for personal transportation, removing heavy cargos from the roadways and onto electrified railways and replacement of Coal fired electric plants with Nuclear electric plants.
2. Encourage personal energy production. The laws have to be changed so that people are encouraged and allowed to put up solar electric panels and wind turbines to provide for the energy they use. This removes the evening surge from what the utilities have to provide. Hydro Electric and Nuclear Electric production both are more efficient providing "base loads" rather than trying to respond to surges in demand.
3. Encourage the use of geothermal resources for base heating and cooling. This removes a fairly worthwhile "base load" from what the utilities have to provide.

These easily achieved things are not what is proposed by the POLITICAL movement known as GLOBAL WARMING. What they are doing is social engineering. The "Carbon Tax" is designed to move income from the "evil rich nations of the G8" to the "deserving nations". The problem is that the deserving nations seem to be the ones that don't have democratic governments, any environmental protections at all or any resources that need energy to extract.

There are a multitude of UN programs that demonstrate how little graft, how much success and how much committment we can expect. In other words this Global Warming Political movement is a project by the usual suspects to continue to have the money flow the right way. Into their pockets.

Here's an article about one of the people that benefited from "Oil for Food", as far as he's concerned - "Climate Change" is just another contribution to his Retirement Savings Program: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html

a snippet ...Maurice Strong is a founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), a division of the U.N. that has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity with an annual budget of $136 million. Mr. Strong left his post at UNEP in the 1970s but kept his ecological credentials and helped organize a 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which become the forerunner of the Kyoto Accords. While Strong has spent a lifetime parlaying his UN contacts into business associations, nowhere has he done so more successfully than with his ecological “credentials.”

Recently Strong has been spending most of his time in China, where he’s been linked, among other things, to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America. But his presence there raises some awkward questions for Russell and Rosett: “For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.”

Could Mr. Strong be benefiting from deals that he helped put together while he was working at the U.N.? We don’t know. What we do know is that Mr. Strong is now on voluntary leave from the U.N. while questions are sorted out concerning a $1 million check that was passed to him by South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad. ...