[stinkyboy]

QUESTION: Will you see Al Gore’s new movie?

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: Doubt it.

(LAUGHTER)

But I will say this about the environmental debate: that my answer to the energy question also is an answer to how you deal with, you know, the greenhouse gas issue. And that is new technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment.

And in my judgment, 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.



What a prick...


Go see the movie, and then react: http://www.climatecrisis.net/

 

[Changleen]

I hope it plays over here.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And in my judgment, 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.



What a prick...

I actually think you read that wrong.

 

[stinkyboy]

I actually think you read that wrong.

That we shouldn't focus on his previous lies about the environment?

He now cares?! BullSh1t!

Why not see the film?

Could this fuqnut be more worthless?!

 

[Secret Squirrel]

That we shouldn't focus on his previous lies about the environment?

He now cares?! BullSh1t!

Why not see the film?

Could this fuqnut be more worthless?!

Only if he lives as long as Reagan...and exercises more...cause then he's stealing oxygen from me. And that's unacceptable.

 

[BurlyShirley]

That we shouldn't focus on his previous lies about the environment?

He now cares?! BullSh1t!

Why not see the film?

Could this fuqnut be more worthless?!

he's the decider B!TCH!

I wont watch it either most likely. And I dont even hate al gore. There's no info available in that film that cant be found on the innernet either now or slightly after its release.

 

[ChrisRobin]

That we shouldn't focus on his previous lies about the environment?

He now cares?! BullSh1t!

Why not see the film?

Could this fuqnut be more worthless?!

He's been doing that kind of **** for years now. It's no different now.

 

[DaveW]

I'd probably go see it.

 

[blue]

Silly Al came into my deli after the premier type thing at Sundance next door...He scared blue.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And in my judgment, 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.

If he listened to the scientific concensus, he wouldn't even be talking about "whether or not greenhouse gasses have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects." I guess this is what we get from a President that puts as much stock in Michael Crichton's fiction as science as he does the actual scientists that do climate research on a day to day basis.

 

[MudGrrl]

 

[Tenchiro]

The thing I find disturbing is that the current administration is understating environmental problems as much as the last administration was overstating them.

It would be nice if someone without a political agenda would get to tell us exactly what is going on...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The thing I find disturbing is that the current administration is understating environmental problems as much as the last administration was overstating them.

It would be nice if someone without a political agenda would get to tell us exactly what is going on...

www.realclimate.org is a good resource.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I saw a 60 Minutes on this a couple weeks back...If I have time, I'll try and find a clip from it...it was scary how bad the recent administrations spun the data. This guy (some NASA Ph.D. guy...) said that yes it's bad, as bad as Clinton made some of the stuff sound, no, as insignificant as Bush has made it sound, hell no....

Damn...now I'm interested in this again...crap.

 

[spincrazy]

I saw it. Pretty good. More people need to see it. There is no debating that global warming is happening and that it's our fault.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I won't be seeing it... but I won't be seeing Scarey Movie LXXVII either...

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I won't be seeing it... but I won't be seeing Scarey Movie LXXVII either...

They aren't one in the same???....

 

[H8R]

Silly Al came into my deli after the premier type thing at Sundance next door...He scared blue.

Who gave you permission to use my old avatar?

 

[blue]

Mister Brian J. Peppers, Esq. was YOUR avatar once? I am shamed. I'm sure he's made the eRounds of nearly every forum ever created, but still...

 

[DaveW]

I'm sure he's made the eRounds of nearly every forum ever created, but still...

But still... is being utterly unoriginal an inconvenient truth?

It is an inconvenient truth thread after all!

 

[Toshi]

I saw it. Pretty good. More people need to see it. There is no debating that global warming is happening and that it's our fault.

i finally got around to seeing it and i agree with the above assessment.

irate2:

 

[1000-Oaks]

I saw it. Pretty good. More people need to see it. There is no debating that global warming is happening and that it's our fault.

Actually there's plenty of debate about whether or not it's our fault, despite what the 2,500 global warming "panelists" say. (only two of which are actual scientists)

This thread should probably be merged with the "religion" thread, since it's just another side of the same coin.

 

[Toshi]

Actually there's plenty of debate about whether or not it's our fault, despite what the 2,500 global warming "panelists" say. (only two of which are actual scientists)

This thread should probably be merged with the "religion" thread, since it's just another side of the same coin.

please provide me with a substantive link so that i or someone else equally motivated can find evidence with which to smack your claims down

 

[Defenestrated]

This thread should probably be merged with the "religion" thread, since it's just another side of the same coin.

One small difference being you can't furnish hard data that proving the existence of a deity, whereas you can easily provide measurable evidence of the Earth's warming.

 

[Damo]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

 

[Samirol]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

science and public policy is a conservative think tank founded by a former Republican Senator and headed by well-known lifelong opponents of global warming, and have received several hundred thousand dollars from Exxon, so they shouldn't be taken as a source with little bias.

 

[Damo]

oh...

 

[binary visions]

Actually there's plenty of debate about whether or not it's our fault, despite what the 2,500 global warming "panelists" say. (only two of which are actual scientists)

This thread should probably be merged with the "religion" thread, since it's just another side of the same coin.

Why do you post in this forum? Virtually everything you say goes against accepted truths or normal logic patterns - which would be fine if you had a single shred of evidence to back it up.

Since you don't, though, you just come off as a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist who hides in his basement and mutters nonsense.

 

[$tinkle]

you know what? fvck the whole lot of ya:
http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=11077&browse=0



"squash capitalism & you squash global warming"

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Eliminating a whole lot of people will squash global warming.

 

[skinny mike]

an inconvenient truth will probably end up being the biggest piece of fear-mongering to come out during my generation.

there is still so much that actual climatologists are unsure about when it comes to how the atmosphere works.

i agree with the fact that the earth's climate is changing and that we need to change to lessen our impact on it and the environment, but i don't like how an inconvenient truth presented that idea.

 

[Toshi]

an inconvenient truth will probably end up being the biggest piece of fear-mongering to come out during my generation.

there is still so much that actual climatologists are unsure about when it comes to how the atmosphere works.

i agree with the fact that the earth's climate is changing and that we need to change to lessen our impact on it and the environment, but i don't like how an inconvenient truth presented that idea.

specifics, from a peer-reviewed article, not from a blog? i suggest http://scholar.google.com as a good place to start looking.

 

[skinny mike]

specifics, from a peer-reviewed article, not from a blog? i suggest http://scholar.google.com as a good place to start looking.

i don't know if i'll be able to find any articles online about what climatologists don't understand, but i'll go through my climatology notes as my professor, who is the state climatologist for vermont, was the one who brought that point up.

just because some of the evidence may point toward anthropogenic climate change, doesn't mean that we should just assume that that's the case.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

...just because some of the evidence may point toward anthropogenic climate change, doesn't mean that we should just assume that that's the case.

Agreed, but who do you assert to be assuming what? Does Lesley-Ann Dupigny-Giroux have a position?

 

[splat]

My older brother who is in the astro-physics dept.at Umass, was telling me, guys who put in grant applications for proving Global warming, are practically a rubber stamp , where those who apply for grant to disprove it , don't stand a chance in hell. ( his example was one of his Peers, wanting to study sunspot activity and the effects on global temperature, was squashed and not even given a look )

I'm not saying it Global warming is true or just fear mongering , Just there is lots of bias on both sides, and unfortunately it is all too politically driven.

 

[Toshi]

My older brother who is in the astro-physics dept.at Umass, was telling me, guys who put in grant applications for proving Global warming, are practically a rubber stamp , where those who apply for grant to disprove it , don't stand a chance in hell. ( his example was one of his Peers, wanting to study sunspot activity and the effects on global temperature, was squashed and not even given a look )

I'm not saying it Global warming is true or just fear mongering , Just there is lots of bias on both sides, and unfortunately it is all too politically driven.

again there is nothing specific to rebut here, just FUD.

fwiw, searching "sunspots global warming" on google scholar brings up 3240 articles and book chapters, so it's not like the issue hasn't been studied. more likely the guy submitted a poor proposal and was shut down for that, not for any nefarious "politically driven" reason.

 

[ohio]

My older brother who is in the astro-physics dept.at Umass, was telling me, guys who put in grant applications for proving Global warming, are practically a rubber stamp , where those who apply for grant to disprove it , don't stand a chance in hell.

Maybe that's because anyone trying to "disprove" Global Warming at this stage is an ideological or political hack. It is no longer about proving or disproving. It's about understanding the subtleties and specifics, and the interplay of many complex factors, but there is no question that the Earth is warming, so why would i waste money on someone trying to prove otherwise.


I bet most applications for disproving evolution don't stand a chance in hell (irony!) either.

 

[kidwoo]

I bet most applications for disproving evolution don't stand a chance in hell (irony!) either.

It's just a theory.

Jeesh.

 

[jimmydean]

please provide me with a substantive link so that i or someone else equally motivated can find evidence with which to smack your claims down

Can we just attach this response to EVERY post he makes and call it a day?

 

[skinny mike]

Agreed, but who do you assert to be assuming what? Does Lesley-Ann Dupigny-Giroux have a position?

if my professor has an opinion on the subject, she hasn't told us about it or i just wasn't paying attention when she did.

we briefly covered climate change because in order to truly understand and be able to study the changes you need to understand weather patterns, climates, and all of that stuff. i am quite glad that she hasn't really shown a bias because i had to take a class last year where i felt like every day i got global warming crap shoved down my throat by the teacher. he also loved to point out the fact that he was one of the few professors who drives a prius.