An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
Juan
You are the one introducing AlBore's little self-promoting, self-discovery film. He has politicized it - Ralph Nadar lives it.
If you want serious discussion on global warming - leave the Borester out of it.
He has nothing to do, no job to speak of except his "environmental movement" which people who feel sorry for him - give him spokesman duties... money to waste on himself, nobody wants to read anything he writes and he is so over.
The guy bought a huge place in San Francisco where the prices are royal, in which he lodges once in a blue moon (like a western White House for Gore).... and this fits in with global warming and excessive use how? Does he bike around places he visits? Of course not - he has an entourage. He is is worst environmental enemy doing damage to the cause he "promotes".
California has a huge environmental movement, studies in universities devoted strictly for that purpose, the people here could be leaders in changing our world.... we live "green" and don't go around spouting off about it... it's a personal thing see. Do what you can and expect the best of others too. If they don't "get it" teach em. California isn't the only state doing this. It happens to be the only one I am familiar with.
You are the one introducing AlBore's little self-promoting, self-discovery film. He has politicized it - Ralph Nadar lives it.
If you want serious discussion on global warming - leave the Borester out of it.
He has nothing to do, no job to speak of except his "environmental movement" which people who feel sorry for him - give him spokesman duties... money to waste on himself, nobody wants to read anything he writes and he is so over.
The guy bought a huge place in San Francisco where the prices are royal, in which he lodges once in a blue moon (like a western White House for Gore).... and this fits in with global warming and excessive use how? Does he bike around places he visits? Of course not - he has an entourage. He is is worst environmental enemy doing damage to the cause he "promotes".
California has a huge environmental movement, studies in universities devoted strictly for that purpose, the people here could be leaders in changing our world.... we live "green" and don't go around spouting off about it... it's a personal thing see. Do what you can and expect the best of others too. If they don't "get it" teach em. California isn't the only state doing this. It happens to be the only one I am familiar with.
You want this to be a political thing. It is not. I introduced that film because it is a great source of information about global warming. Al gore's political stripe has nothing to do with it. If he does nothing for the rest of his life, this film was a good idea.. You say Gore is doing damage to the cause and that is nonsense. He is making people aware of a serious problem.
Juan
You are making ridiculous accusations and assumptions.
Al Gore isn't "making us aware of global warming".... it has been going on for years....
Because you introduced the topic and are now defending it and Gore - demonstrates what a stubborn position you take when there are far more valuable resources out there than a travelling circus.
As much as you wish it Juan - Americans are far from stupid - that only exists in your narrow bigotted world.
You are making ridiculous accusations and assumptions.
Al Gore isn't "making us aware of global warming".... it has been going on for years....
Because you introduced the topic and are now defending it and Gore - demonstrates what a stubborn position you take when there are far more valuable resources out there than a travelling circus.
As much as you wish it Juan - Americans are far from stupid - that only exists in your narrow bigotted world.
LOL Juan
You personalized the article yourself.
But do keep it personal Juan - it is so revealing.
You personalized the article yourself.
But do keep it personal Juan - it is so revealing.
But the grand millenium of time and geological epochs do indicate global warming in the past without a human presence, and it may just be that we ants are that insignificant in the face of these huge cycles.
Can't talk about GW unless you can think in geological time and be aware of the timescale. Above my head now 32,000 and 10,000 year bp there was a mile of ice. Evidence of previous glaciation in the lower buried soils. In Cobalt, Ontario is a nice outcrop of Huronian Conglomerate (say 1billion years old) that was glacial till, boulder clay. In this is a nice boulder of conglomerate from an even older glaciation.
The first time I fly to the arctic I realized the 'tree line' was a spread out northward colonization of the boreal forest, started after the last ice age. Same with the tree line on mountains.
All GW discussions, pro and con, have to take this into account. And the public has to be able to think in these time scales.
Me with an eng background, I think we are affecting things but don't give Mother Earth enough credit for being tough (or caring). It's just a shame to see a supertanker worth of oil being used for a nascar event, 2mpg jumbo RV's or to fly enviromentalist around the world talk about GW.
BTW Gore's not my fav but I think the world would have been a lot better if he was pres and the republicans had the 2 houses.
Can't talk about GW unless you can think in geological time and be aware of the timescale. Above my head now 32,000 and 10,000 year bp there was a mile of ice. Evidence of previous glaciation in the lower buried soils. In Cobalt, Ontario is a nice outcrop of Huronian Conglomerate (say 1billion years old) that was glacial till, boulder clay. In this is a nice boulder of conglomerate from an even older glaciation.
The first time I fly to the arctic I realized the 'tree line' was a spread out northward colonization of the boreal forest, started after the last ice age. Same with the tree line on mountains.
All GW discussions, pro and con, have to take this into account. And the public has to be able to think in these time scales.
Me with an eng background, I think we are affecting things but don't give Mother Earth enough credit for being tough (or caring). It's just a shame to see a supertanker worth of oil being used for a nascar event, 2mpg jumbo RV's or to fly enviromentalist around the world talk about GW.
BTW Gore's not my fav but I think the world would have been a lot better if he was pres and the republicans had the 2 houses.
I haven't seen the movie nor will I, it's been called Junk Science by the Experts in the field of Global Warming and that is good enough for me. Global Warming is the Earth aging, but the screamers refuse to believe it's the Earth Aging because they loose all that lovely grant money. So we have Pro Global Warming side screaming loudly so they can get lots of money to study something they can't prove ergo the funding last a life time. Junk Science.
But the grand millenium of time and geological epochs do indicate global warming in the past without a human presence, and it may just be that we ants are that insignificant in the face of these huge cycles.
Can't talk about GW unless you can think in geological time and be aware of the timescale. Above my head now 32,000 and 10,000 year bp there was a mile of ice. Evidence of previous glaciation in the lower buried soils. In Cobalt, Ontario is a nice outcrop of Huronian Conglomerate (say 1billion years old) that was glacial till, boulder clay. In this is a nice boulder of conglomerate from an even older glaciation.
The first time I fly to the arctic I realized the 'tree line' was a spread out northward colonization of the boreal forest, started after the last ice age. Same with the tree line on mountains.
All GW discussions, pro and con, have to take this into account. And the public has to be able to think in these time scales.
Me with an eng background, I think we are affecting things but don't give Mother Earth enough credit for being tough (or caring). It's just a shame to see a supertanker worth of oil being used for a nascar event, 2mpg jumbo RV's or to fly enviromentalist around the world talk about GW.
BTW Gore's not my fav but I think the world would have been a lot better if he was pres and the republicans had the 2 houses.
--------------------------------------------Borealrock-------------------------------------------------
The above is worth repeating.
Good post.
Can't talk about GW unless you can think in geological time and be aware of the timescale. Above my head now 32,000 and 10,000 year bp there was a mile of ice. Evidence of previous glaciation in the lower buried soils. In Cobalt, Ontario is a nice outcrop of Huronian Conglomerate (say 1billion years old) that was glacial till, boulder clay. In this is a nice boulder of conglomerate from an even older glaciation.
The first time I fly to the arctic I realized the 'tree line' was a spread out northward colonization of the boreal forest, started after the last ice age. Same with the tree line on mountains.
All GW discussions, pro and con, have to take this into account. And the public has to be able to think in these time scales.
Me with an eng background, I think we are affecting things but don't give Mother Earth enough credit for being tough (or caring). It's just a shame to see a supertanker worth of oil being used for a nascar event, 2mpg jumbo RV's or to fly enviromentalist around the world talk about GW.
BTW Gore's not my fav but I think the world would have been a lot better if he was pres and the republicans had the 2 houses.
--------------------------------------------Borealrock-------------------------------------------------
The above is worth repeating.
Good post.
Ahhhhhh common sense... Borealrock thank you !
I have google'd a few places and while there are tons, I came up with this one which I hope some will find time to read through.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
The citation gives links to other essays and articles as well as places the current U.S. thinking on the topic.
I have google'd a few places and while there are tons, I came up with this one which I hope some will find time to read through.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
The citation gives links to other essays and articles as well as places the current U.S. thinking on the topic.
Sassy and others,
can you quote one well known, qualified, meteorologist who thinks the fears about global warming are unfounded or a product of "junk science"??
Another question: Who are the "experts in the field of global warming" you speak of? Can we have a quote or a link?
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-06-09/kyoto.htm
http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=4544
http://www.terryfrazier.com/fullThread$msgNum=704#msg704
http://www.libertarian.bc.ca/election2005/burke-mtn.html
http://beehive.thisishull.co.uk/default.asp?WCI=SiteHome&ID=1634&PageID=66746
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~triumph/science.htm
http://blog.nam.org/archives/2005/10/more_truth_on_k.php
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p419.htm
http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1493.htm
http://www.quantonics.com/A_Kyoto_Accord.html I really like this one...
http://www.pegnl.ca/dialogue/issues/2003/june_2003/article_18.htm #Juan, you'll like this one...
15,000 scientists protest Kyoto...I like them numbers,lmao
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/Publications/pressrel/petition.html
How many of those scientists were paid for by the U.S government.
Maybe some of you people want to believe that it has nothing to do with humans, however,
There was a normal line basically with a few small spikes in the temperature and global warming throughout Eaarth's history until, you guessed it, there was a spike in the 1800s, not a small one, a huge freaking spike and what occured during that time Industrialization. And it has continued as ie, what occures in developing and developed nations with the green house gases.
The ones that call it Junk science, not the citizens that just believe it is not occuring because they want all their little gadgets and all that good jazz, the scientists that back Bush, are in the American pocketbook.
Maybe some of you people want to believe that it has nothing to do with humans, however,
There was a normal line basically with a few small spikes in the temperature and global warming throughout Eaarth's history until, you guessed it, there was a spike in the 1800s, not a small one, a huge freaking spike and what occured during that time Industrialization. And it has continued as ie, what occures in developing and developed nations with the green house gases.
The ones that call it Junk science, not the citizens that just believe it is not occuring because they want all their little gadgets and all that good jazz, the scientists that back Bush, are in the American pocketbook.
Go back and read what people have said, no says there isn't a problem, they say the science that went into the accord was flawed.
Kyoto was a flaw because of politics between developed and non-developed however it was an okay step. However, and in Canada they never did anything to ensure Kyoto could be successful. However, it has to do with Human activity that has resulted in such action I have seen the stats and human action, especially on the individual level should occur because governments will never do anything to assist the environment. Even the most green government.
Look at the links and then come back and try that again. Canada never did anything, because it would have nearly crippled our economy, so thank who ever you pray to that we didn't. Or you would like ly be wearing nothing in no time.
And unless you walk around all day nakid, and eat nothing. You need industry to survive. If you would like a hunting or fishing lesson, just ask. I can also teach you how to find and prepare wild plants and vegetables ifthat would help you in the future you are looking to create?
I think this will sum up Al's intentions, nicely.
http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/season10/1006.php
http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/season10/1006.php
Kyoto
I personally was very upset when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Accord. I went to a forum at the U of A about 4 or 5 years ago (can't remember exactly when, but before the Accord was signed) where so called "experts" were on the panel spouting the usual rhetoric about "computer simulations" etc. and fossil fuel and coal use and how our world was doomed. What I couldn't understand, and still don't understand, is how Kyoto is going to make things better when most of the largest emitters are countries who haven't (and won't) sign on?? And, as is well recorded, since the signing of the Accord, Canada's immissions have increased and - ta da - the US has decreased their immissions. So the US obviously take environmental issues much more seriously than our politicos do. Further, buying and selling credits is not only a lot of work for people to keep track of, but very, very costly (i.e. new government bureaucracy, which of course we really need right - more taxes to pay for bureaucrats to keep track of things - ewww, don't even want to go there!!) Besides, the cash used to purchase credits could just as easily go to R&D could it not?? Too many issues, much, much too complicated - therefore, NOT the way to go.
At this forum, I asked the experts, rather than signing this Accord, why Canadians couldn't come up with their own solution - encourage green R&D and sell it; set up guidelines/laws (not unlike California) for immissions and SEVERELY PENALIZE companies who igore them; phase them in and make the "bottom line" chrystal clear. No way, said these experts - Kyoto was better. When I asked how, I just got more rhetoric, something about non-compliance and other stuff. Seems to me that if you break the law here it's easier to deal with rather than having someone break the law elsewhere and trying to impose your "Kyoto" ideal" elsewhere doesn't it?? Or is it just me?
While I came up with the "made in Canada" title years before the Conservatives, I believe its the only way to go. Tough legislation with teeth and no BS. But, even under the Conservatives, my thinking is that we don't have the political will, period and, for whatever reason, Kyoto seems to be the easier route. I believe it'll never work and it will be EXTREMELY expensive. Maybe companies will pay whatever the price but guess who's gonna get nailed in the end?? You and me buddy and that sucks big time!!
My opinion only...
I personally was very upset when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Accord. I went to a forum at the U of A about 4 or 5 years ago (can't remember exactly when, but before the Accord was signed) where so called "experts" were on the panel spouting the usual rhetoric about "computer simulations" etc. and fossil fuel and coal use and how our world was doomed. What I couldn't understand, and still don't understand, is how Kyoto is going to make things better when most of the largest emitters are countries who haven't (and won't) sign on?? And, as is well recorded, since the signing of the Accord, Canada's immissions have increased and - ta da - the US has decreased their immissions. So the US obviously take environmental issues much more seriously than our politicos do. Further, buying and selling credits is not only a lot of work for people to keep track of, but very, very costly (i.e. new government bureaucracy, which of course we really need right - more taxes to pay for bureaucrats to keep track of things - ewww, don't even want to go there!!) Besides, the cash used to purchase credits could just as easily go to R&D could it not?? Too many issues, much, much too complicated - therefore, NOT the way to go.
At this forum, I asked the experts, rather than signing this Accord, why Canadians couldn't come up with their own solution - encourage green R&D and sell it; set up guidelines/laws (not unlike California) for immissions and SEVERELY PENALIZE companies who igore them; phase them in and make the "bottom line" chrystal clear. No way, said these experts - Kyoto was better. When I asked how, I just got more rhetoric, something about non-compliance and other stuff. Seems to me that if you break the law here it's easier to deal with rather than having someone break the law elsewhere and trying to impose your "Kyoto" ideal" elsewhere doesn't it?? Or is it just me?
While I came up with the "made in Canada" title years before the Conservatives, I believe its the only way to go. Tough legislation with teeth and no BS. But, even under the Conservatives, my thinking is that we don't have the political will, period and, for whatever reason, Kyoto seems to be the easier route. I believe it'll never work and it will be EXTREMELY expensive. Maybe companies will pay whatever the price but guess who's gonna get nailed in the end?? You and me buddy and that sucks big time!!
My opinion only...
Kyoto
I personally was very upset when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Accord. I went to a forum at the U of A about 4 or 5 years ago (can't remember exactly when, but before the Accord was signed) where so called "experts" were on the panel spouting the usual rhetoric about "computer simulations" and fossil fuel and coal use and how our world was doomed. What I couldn't understand, and still don't understand, is how Kyoto is going to make things better when most of the largest emitters are countries who haven't (and won't) sign on?? And, as is well recorded, since the signing of the Accord, Canada's immissions have increased and - ta da - the US has decreased their immissions. So the US obviously take environmental issues much more seriously than our politicos do. Further, buying and selling credits is not only a lot of work for people to keep track of, but very, very costly (i.e. new government bureaucracy, which of course we really need right - more taxes to pay for bureaucrats to keep track of things - ewww, don't even want to go there!!) Besides, the cash used to purchase credits could just as easily go to R&D could it not?? Too many issues, much, much too complicated - therefore, NOT the way to go.
At this forum, I asked the experts, rather than signing this Accord, why Canadians couldn't come up with their own solution - encourage green R&D and sell it; set up guidelines/laws (not unlike California) for immissions and SEVERELY PENALIZE companies who igore them; phase them in and make the "bottom line" chrystal clear. No way, said these experts - Kyoto was better. When I asked how, I just got more rhetoric, something about non-compliance and other stuff. Seems to me that if you break the law here it's easier to deal with rather than having someone break the law elsewhere and trying to impose your "Kyoto" ideal" elsewhere doesn't it?? Or is it just me?
While I came up with the "made in Canada" title years before the Conservatives, I believe its the only way to go. Tough legislation with teeth and no BS. But, even under the Conservatives, my thinking is that we don't have the political will, period and, for whatever reason, Kyoto seems to be the easier route. I believe it'll never work and it will be EXTREMELY expensive. Maybe companies will pay whatever the price but guess who's gonna get nailed in the end?? You and me buddy and that sucks big time!!
My opinion only...
I personally was very upset when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Accord. I went to a forum at the U of A about 4 or 5 years ago (can't remember exactly when, but before the Accord was signed) where so called "experts" were on the panel spouting the usual rhetoric about "computer simulations" and fossil fuel and coal use and how our world was doomed. What I couldn't understand, and still don't understand, is how Kyoto is going to make things better when most of the largest emitters are countries who haven't (and won't) sign on?? And, as is well recorded, since the signing of the Accord, Canada's immissions have increased and - ta da - the US has decreased their immissions. So the US obviously take environmental issues much more seriously than our politicos do. Further, buying and selling credits is not only a lot of work for people to keep track of, but very, very costly (i.e. new government bureaucracy, which of course we really need right - more taxes to pay for bureaucrats to keep track of things - ewww, don't even want to go there!!) Besides, the cash used to purchase credits could just as easily go to R&D could it not?? Too many issues, much, much too complicated - therefore, NOT the way to go.
At this forum, I asked the experts, rather than signing this Accord, why Canadians couldn't come up with their own solution - encourage green R&D and sell it; set up guidelines/laws (not unlike California) for immissions and SEVERELY PENALIZE companies who igore them; phase them in and make the "bottom line" chrystal clear. No way, said these experts - Kyoto was better. When I asked how, I just got more rhetoric, something about non-compliance and other stuff. Seems to me that if you break the law here it's easier to deal with rather than having someone break the law elsewhere and trying to impose your "Kyoto" ideal" elsewhere doesn't it?? Or is it just me?
While I came up with the "made in Canada" title years before the Conservatives, I believe its the only way to go. Tough legislation with teeth and no BS. But, even under the Conservatives, my thinking is that we don't have the political will, period and, for whatever reason, Kyoto seems to be the easier route. I believe it'll never work and it will be EXTREMELY expensive. Maybe companies will pay whatever the price but guess who's gonna get nailed in the end?? You and me buddy and that sucks big time!!
My opinion only...
Ya well your opinion is quite a breath of "fresh" air(pun intended). When the green nuts stop blocking Hydro, Nuclear and Green incinatrators, we will see some changes.
The government needs not to re-invent the wheel. The technology is already out there. All they need to do is buy it. I wouldn't mind my tax dollars doing that.