PDA

View Full Version : Gore is apparently a clingy b****


banyon
05-22-2006, 07:23 PM
Bush Snubs Gore Film on Global Warming
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
1 hour, 46 minutes ago

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060520/capt.can16905201946.film_cannes_an_inconvenient_truth_can169.jpg?x=180&y=270&sig=WSfza_mg.hNH_eHHcaM3AQ--

WASHINGTON - Is President Bush likely to see Al Gore's documentary about global warming? "Doubt it," Bush said coolly Monday. But Bush should watch it, Gore shot back. In fact, the former Democratic vice president offered to come to the White House any time, any day to show Bush either his documentary or a slide show on global warming that he's shown more than 1,000 times around the world.


"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore said in an Associated Press interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.

Bush and Gore have had bitter disagreements about the environment and other issues. Bush defeated Gore in a disputed presidential election that was finally settled by the Supreme Court in 2000.

Gore's documentary chronicles his efforts to bring greater attention to the dangers of climate change.

"New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment," Bush said. "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."

Gore said the causes of global warming should not be ignored.

"Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus," Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. "Is it because Exxon Mobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of Exxon Mobil. Why?"

"I'm a grandfather and he's a father and this should not be a political issue," Gore said. "And he should ask the National Academy of Sciences ... whether or not human beings are contributing to global warming."

The White House said Bush already has acknowledged the impact of human behavior on global warming.

"The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was due to certain extent to human activity," said White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

"Since then he has committed tens of billions of dollars to the science and technology programs that he initiated and we are well on our way to meeting the president's goal of reducing greenhouse intensity by 18 percent by 2012," she said.

Gore's movie debuted at last winter's Sundance Film Festival and opens in U.S. theaters Wednesday.

Mr. Laz
05-22-2006, 07:43 PM
Gore makes Bush look like an in-bred mongoloid

penchief
05-22-2006, 08:56 PM
Gore makes Bush look like a in-bred mongoloid

If Gore is a loser what does that make Bush? OMG! What have we become?

Of course, Bush did once own the Texas Rangers and I have a mountain home in the Texas panhandle I'd like to sell.

BucEyedPea
05-22-2006, 09:14 PM
I would like to know the source of that article, the publication's name.

I take issue with this here:
"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore said in an Associated Press interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.

"Entire?" I mean this is supposed to be news reporting and it relies on hyperbole?

I wouldn't say there's an "entire consensus" on global warming in the "global sceintific community" in terms of how its being reported. What a sweeping generality.

How about the Oregon Petition Project (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) which has over 17,000 scientists, including on climate, sign a petition claiming that global warming is so slight that it's actually beneficial to man creating longer growing season and need for less fuel; that it's a natural phenomena too.

There's also the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change, a statement signed by 80 academics and 25 meteorologists, repudiating the oft-repeated claim that there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue.

Now I know there are sites that have criticized these. You can take your pick of expert witnesses, but there is no "entire" consensus.

BucEyedPea
05-22-2006, 09:38 PM
"Issue Analysis: Cool to Opposing Climate Views, Networks Don't Mention Legions of Scientists who Question Global Warming Theories


Fifteen thousand scientists sign a petition proclaiming their skepticism toward currently fashionable global warming theories, and the networks are are silent....

http://www.sepp.org/controv/newssilent.html



Global Warming's Shaky Foundation (http://www.sepp.org/controv/shakyfoundation.html)

unlurking
05-22-2006, 09:51 PM
BEP, that is a quote from Gore, not a statement by a media outlet.

Pitt Gorilla
05-23-2006, 01:22 AM
I would like to know the source of that article, the publication's name.

I take issue with this here:


"Entire?" I mean this is supposed to be news reporting and it relies on hyperbole?

I wouldn't say there's an "entire consensus" on global warming in the "global sceintific community" in terms of how its being reported. What a sweeping generality.

How about the Oregon Petition Project (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) which has over 17,000 scientists, including on climate, sign a petition claiming that global warming is so slight that it's actually beneficial to man creating longer growing season and need for less fuel; that it's a natural phenomena too.

There's also the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change, a statement signed by 80 academics and 25 meteorologists, repudiating the oft-repeated claim that there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue.

Now I know there are sites that have criticized these. You can take your pick of expert witnesses, but there is no "entire" consensus.Uh, it was a direct quote from Al. It may not be correct, but it wasn't the fault of the publication.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2006, 06:54 AM
Cool. Then the article shows that Gore is the idiot and doesn't know his facts, is a liar or delusional. In fact that sounds a lot like Bush! ROFL

Anyhow, I woulda made the same point on this issue regardless of who was being quoted, because that idea is frequently reported.

I'd still like to know who the name of source reporting it besides the writer.

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 08:28 AM
This is how the environmentalist get all their crazy shiate passed into law. The come up with a premise, and then finance one or more studies to figure out how they can prove this premise to be true. Normally, the study is skewed to make sure that the outcome is beneficial to the organization that financed it. Then, the promotion for change is launched. The statement “we’re passed deciding whether it’s happening, we are now trying to formulate what to do about it” is issued. Then the injunctions are filed to stop the offending group of people. The environmentalist then go to their representatives and strong-arm them with traditional “if you don’t do something about this you hate the environment”. The spineless representative pontificates on the floor of one of the houses so they can be on the record for being pro-environment. If a bill is not introduced to make the offense illegal, the environmentalist will use the courts to stop the offenders using one of the many endanger species acts that they have at their disposal. All the while the foundation is marketing the “tragedy” and getting filthy rich in the process. After they have wrecked havoc on as many offenders as they can, they move on to the next “tragedy” and start over.

It’s a business model, not a movement.

jiveturkey
05-23-2006, 09:01 AM
The CEO of Shell even stated that global warming is no longer up for debate and that measures need to be taken to reduce emissions.

You had to be watching the Today Show this morning to see it.

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 09:03 AM
The CEO of Shell even stated that global warming is no longer up for debate and that measures need to be taken to reduce emissions.

You had to be watching the Today Show this morning to see it.
What is he an expert?

banyon
05-23-2006, 09:34 AM
This is how the environmentalist get all their crazy shiate passed into law. The come up with a premise, and then finance one or more studies to figure out how they can prove this premise to be true. Normally, the study is skewed to make sure that the outcome is beneficial to the organization that financed it. Then, the promotion for change is launched. The statement “we’re passed deciding whether it’s happening, we are now trying to formulate what to do about it” is issued. Then the injunctions are filed to stop the offending group of people. The environmentalist then go to their representatives and strong-arm them with traditional “if you don’t do something about this you hate the environment”. The spineless representative pontificates on the floor of one of the houses so they can be on the record for being pro-environment. If a bill is not introduced to make the offense illegal, the environmentalist will use the courts to stop the offenders using one of the many endanger species acts that they have at their disposal. All the while the foundation is marketing the “tragedy” and getting filthy rich in the process. After they have wrecked havoc on as many offenders as they can, they move on to the next “tragedy” and start over.

It’s a business model, not a movement.

That's the process of lobbying and funded studies in general. For any position.

Global Warming has a little more hard data than a couple of cleverly skewed polls or something.

Most of the countries in the world know this and thus signed onto to the Kyoto Protocol.

Even President Bush, from the OP doesn't pretend that it is some kind of hoax.

"The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was due to certain extent to human activity," said White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

The Administration's stated position vis-a-vis the Protocol is that they didn't sign it because it didn't do enough to curb emissions in China and India.

Pretending that the problem doesn't exist is a very dangerous and unnecessary gambit for the benefit of a relative few.

patteeu
05-23-2006, 11:04 AM
Even President Bush

By using the word "even" you might leave a reader with the false impression that President Bush was previously a skeptic on this issue. He's been a global warming believer as far back as I can remember. He isn't a global warming hawk like Al Gore, but he's never been a skeptic (or if he was, it was a long long time ago) so his statements on the subject aren't particularly compelling in a statements-against-interest or a statements-against-type kind of way.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2006, 11:14 AM
By using the word "even" you might leave a reader with the false impression that President Bush was previously a skeptic on this issue. He's been a global warming believer as far back as I can remember. He isn't a global warming hawk like Al Gore, but he's never been a skeptic (or if he was, it was a long long time ago) so his statements on the subject aren't particularly compelling in a statements-against-interest or a statements-against-type kind of way.


I agree patteeu. Bush believes the basic scientific, widely-promoted "assumptions" on global warming. He just doesn't buy the "fix"...Kyoto.

It's not good enough for me that a large number of countries ( mostly socialist ones) accepting this science means it's correct. That's just "group think"...sometimes it takes an individual to make scientific breakthroughs. Govt orgs ( including the UN are bascially committees, who don't make breakthroughs or get much done) Many thought the world was flat at one time. Then there was Dr. Semmelweis who was attacked, vilified and marginalized by own medical peers for claiming not washing one's hands was the cause of child-bed fever. It took a hundred years, and many more deaths, before his peers accepted he was right. I call it cultural lag. Peer review is not always correct and can be over-rated, can even be passed down in the halls of education for a long time.

Much of this environmental science is being generated by the UN and the left, who hate western civ and are anti-market. It's always us humans and our propensity to advance and develop that is to blame. They'd rather we go back to live like one big primitive tribe, when the answer is more of the same: more tech development.

banyon
05-23-2006, 11:19 AM
By using the word "even" you might leave a reader with the false impression that President Bush was previously a skeptic on this issue. He's been a global warming believer as far back as I can remember. He isn't a global warming hawk like Al Gore, but he's never been a skeptic (or if he was, it was a long long time ago) so his statements on the subject aren't particularly compelling in a statements-against-interest or a statements-against-type kind of way.


By even, I meant "Even Velvet Jones' hero"

Cochise
05-23-2006, 11:22 AM
Gore looks like he's aged 20 years and really packed on the lbs since 2000.

I know he was always wearing a ton of makeup back then but sheesh.

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 11:22 AM
Global Warming has a little more hard data than a couple of cleverly skewed polls or something.

Most of the countries in the world know this and thus signed onto to the Kyoto Protocol.



I disagree with the premise, not the data. The fact that global warming is a reality has little to do with us as humans. Nature is cyclical, just like about everything else. Environmentalists want it to be static and us as humans need to do everything in our power to make it static. Or else they will have the government do it for us.

As far as the Kyoto Protocol, that was an economic equality treaty disguised as an environmental treaty.

I have said this before.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2080891&postcount=14

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 11:27 AM
By even, I meant "Even Velvet Jones' hero"
You obviously don’t know me. I’ve had many many issues with Bush. When I speak up for him, I’m really speaking up for a religious-neutral conservatism. He has turned out to be less conservative than I had originally expected.

Pitt Gorilla
05-23-2006, 11:50 AM
I disagree with the premise, not the data. The fact that global warming is a reality has little to do with us as humans. Given that you seem to be stating this as fact, perhaps you could provide some supporting evidence. Obviously, humans aren't the only cause. But to positively claim that we have "little" to do with it seems a tad presumptuous.

banyon
05-23-2006, 01:57 PM
I disagree with the premise, not the data. The fact that global warming is a reality has little to do with us as humans. Nature is cyclical, just like about everything else. Environmentalists want it to be static and us as humans need to do everything in our power to make it static. Or else they will have the government do it for us.

As far as the Kyoto Protocol, that was an economic equality treaty disguised as an environmental treaty.

I have said this before.

ok:

I think it's funny that people believe that we as human being can control the environment. It's simply amazing that people think we wield that kind of power over something as vast as the world. Something like 85% of all greenhouse gases comes from the ocean. Another 7% comes from natural fires and active volcanoes. That leaves humans responsible for less than 10% of all greenhouse gases. If it is true that greenhouse gases are directly related to global warming then it's a farce that humans have any significant effect of the environment as a whole.

The same people that are screaming global warming were screaming global cooling in the eighties. It's a fact that the environment changes. We cannot stop it. We cannot start it. We have nothing to do with it except to accept it.

In general, the whole environment thing is a farce. It is used as a tool to control or attack prosperity. The Kyoto Treaty is not an environmental treaty at all. I see it as an economic treaty designed to give third world countries an advantage by hampering industrialized countries with bureaucratic red tape and regulations that are unrealistic and costly. This is typical liberal thinking. Instead of creating a clearing for the bottom of the scale to rise up, the top of the scale be brought down. I just don't understand this thinking.
Velvet

I don't really know where to begin with how misguided this view is.

Since you are some form of conservative, let me try history as a basis for reference.

Here is a brief history from the American Lung association of a different pollutant (viz. air pollution)

1948
Air pollution inversion (cool air trapped by warm air above it keeps pollution from dispersing) in Donora, Pennsylvania, kills 20 people and makes 40 percent of the town's 14,000 inhabitants ill.

1949
Cleaner Air Week is started by the Air Pollution Control Association to commemorate the Donora air inversion.

1952
Sulfur-laden smog covers London and is responsible for 4,000 deaths over a two-week period.

1960
Respiratory Disease Committee of the National Tuberculosis Association recommends that tuberculosis associations consider air pollution problems in their respective areas and form local control committees if needed.

1961
The national board of the National Tuberculosis Association adopts a resolution expressing major concern about all environmental health hazards, urging prompt and vigorous action be taken through a national program under the leadership of the United States Public Health Service.

1963
Air pollution inversion in New York leads to 405 deaths.

1966
National Air Conservation Commission formed by the American Lung Association to address air conservation issues and develop lung association positions on these issues.

1966
Air pollution inversion in New York leads to 168 deaths.

1967
Air Quality Control Act passed by Congress, setting timetables for states to establish their own air quality standards.

1968
American Lung Association sponsors national conference on air pollution programs.

1970
Congress passes the Clean Air Act, allowing the newly created Environmental Protection Agency to set national air quality standards. Also allowed states to establish their own stricter standards, which California did.

1972
American Lung Association becomes a sponsor of Clean Air Week.

1975
Catalytic converter developed and used on auto emissions systems. Cuts hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by 96 percent and nitrogen oxides by 75 percent.

1977
Revised Clean Air Act Amendments passed by Congress, providing more time for areas with more serious air quality problems to comply with standards.

1981
American Lung Association expands air conservation program to include indoor air pollution.

1987
Indoor Air Quality Act first introduced into Congress to address the pervasive problem of indoor air pollution.

1988
EPA establishes Indoor Air Division of the Office of Air and Radiation to address indoor air quality issues.

1988
Congress approves Indoor Radon Abatement Act to assess extent of indoor radon problem, educate public on hazards of exposure and improve testing and repair technology.

1990
American Lung Association and EPA designate second week of October as National Radon Action Week to educate the public on the hazards of radon exposure and subsequent precautions.

1990
National ban on smoking aboard domestic flights enacted, protecting passengers from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

1990
Further revisions to Clean Air Act Amendments are passed by Congress, this time providing more time to comply with standards but requiring that cities implement specific air pollution control measures.

1991
American Lung Association sues EPA to force review of ozone air quality standard. By law, the standards were to be reviewed every five years, but have not been reviewed since 1979.

1992
In the American Lung Association v. EPA, the court rules in favor of the ALA.

1992
The American Lung Association sues EPA to force review of the sulfer dioxide standard; court rules in favor of the ALA in 1993.

1993
EPA reviews ozone standard, but chooses not to revise it.

1993
EPA classifies secondhand smoke as a group A carcinogen, responsible for an estimated 3,000 cases of lung cancer in nonsmokers and 150,000 to 300,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age each year.

1993
American Lung Association files a lawsuit seeking to force the EPA to revise the federal air quality standard for ozone air pollution. This challenges EPA's decision not to revise the air quality standard for ozone air pollution. In 1994, EPA agrees to review the decision not to revise the ozone standard, but 1997 deadline remains.

1993
American Lung Association testifies before Congress that the current federal standard for ozone air pollution does not protect public health and should be changed.

1993
American Lung Association sues EPA for failing to review the adequacy of federal health-based standards for particulate matter air pollution. Court rules in favor of the ALA in 1994.

1994
American Lung Association files a lawsuit to compel EPA to speed up review of the ozone standard.

1997
EPA strengthens the standard for particulate matter air pollution.

1999
Clinton Administration announces federal plan that would for the first time require all private passenger vehicles - including sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered vehicles - to meet the same tough clean air standards.

2000
EPA passes new rule for diesel, capping sulfur levels in diesel fuel at 15 parts per million by 2007.

2001
Supreme Court supports health-based air pollution standards when it rejects challenges to the new standard for particulate matter.

2002
Landmark legislation (AB 1493) was passed in California that requires automakers to reduce greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.

2002
California adopts more stringent particulate matter standards for PM10 and PM2.5.

Now, just trying to see exactly how far you carry this premise of yours.

Were these deaths just "made up" to attack prosperity?

Is air quality in places like Bakersfield CA and L.A. proper not significantly better than it used to be?

Did the regulations imposed bankrupt everyone in LA or SF?

More importantly are you aware that the more prosperous a country is, the more stringent the environmental laws are? Usually people with money no longer want to breathe and drink filth?

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 02:08 PM
Given that you seem to be stating this as fact, perhaps you could provide some supporting evidence. Obviously, humans aren't the only cause. But to positively claim that we have "little" to do with it seems a tad presumptuous.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

I would encourage you to read the first because it describes how the numbers are being misused to arrive at the correct conclusion. Have you ever used google?

Velvet

banyon
05-23-2006, 02:13 PM
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

I would encourage you to read the first because it describes how the numbers are being misused to arrive at the correct conclusion. Have you ever used google?

Velvet

What a terrible argument.

It's analagous to a 120lb woman getting onto an elevator that has a max load capacity of 4000lbs. There are already eight 500 pound people on the elevator, but the 120 woman reasons, "Well, most of the problem is attributable to other people, so my getting on the elevator can have no effect on the situation."

Although this genious agrees with you...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/foxgore.jpg

BucEyedPea
05-23-2006, 02:28 PM
Gore looks like he's aged 20 years and really packed on the lbs since 2000.

I know he was always wearing a ton of makeup back then but sheesh.

It's the pollution...it ages people.
He's his own walking exhibit A.

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 02:40 PM
More importantly are you aware that the more prosperous a country is, the more stringent the environmental laws are? Usually people with money no longer want to breathe and drink filth?
WTF? – Where did I say that environmental regulation was not necessary? There is a huge difference between environmentalism and sound environmental policy / regulations. I think of the global warming issue as environmentalism because people who promote it as fact are not telling the entire truth. They fail to mention the relatively small impact that humans actually have in effecting global temperature change. They completely leave out that water vapor is a greenhouse gas and limit there focus to CO2 and methane. That is intellectually dishonest. They want to blame humanity because it’s sexier that actually studying data. BTW, these same people were biatching about global cooling in the late 70’s through the 80’s. I am very skeptical of the whole idea that humanity can control global temperature.

Have you ever read the Kyoto Protocol? Here is where you’re off base. It has requirements that cannot be attained by any industrialized nations. Your own post shows the sixty some odd years that the US took to establish sound environmental policy. Kyoto gave us until 2008 to comply with an approximately 18-25% drop in emissions. The US would certainly not been able to meet that goal. Oh, and there are punitive fines for not meeting the goals. Not to mention the inaccuracy and difficulty there is in measuring sources and sinks of greenhouse gasses.

Do yourself a favor look at this logically. Don’t assume that the talking heads of some enviromental movement have your best interest in mind.

banyon
05-23-2006, 03:05 PM
WTF? – Where did I say that environmental regulation was not necessary?

um, that's why I boldfaced it for you the first time...


In general, the whole environment thing is a farce. It is used as a tool to control or attack prosperity.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2006, 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by banyon
More importantly are you aware that the more prosperous a country is, the more stringent the environmental laws are? Usually people with money no longer want to breathe and drink filth?

Interesting point, since I've found other countries, outside of America, with more toxic fumes in the air, just from automobiles...particularly socialist ones, or where they have bigger govt. Govt's are the BIGGEST polluters.

America has done a very good job cleaning things up compared to other nations from what I've seen, even if we "allegedly" pollute more. It's not just our lifestyles (which has actually made our standard of living cleaner and healthier overall) but there are a lot more of us.

And I'll still take an automobile over horse feces all over the streets, which dried and got inhaled giving people lock jaw, or splattered all over people's clothes in the rain, bringing it into every home.

RaiderH8r
05-23-2006, 03:10 PM
What is he an expert?
No, he's a guy under barrage who's trying to placate one segment of the country that wants his nuts hung from the rafters. He's covering his arse, he doesn't care if it is or isn't real. It's good PR...for the same reason environmentalism is fashionable, they have their religious whackos whipped into a frenzy.

RaiderH8r
05-23-2006, 03:12 PM
Given that you seem to be stating this as fact, perhaps you could provide some supporting evidence. Obviously, humans aren't the only cause. But to positively claim that we have "little" to do with it seems a tad presumptuous.
It's considerably less presumptuous than to say we have "everything" to do with it.

banyon
05-23-2006, 03:21 PM
Interesting point, since I've found other countries, outside of America, with more toxic fumes in the air, just from automobiles...particularly socialist ones, or where they have bigger govt. Govt's are the BIGGEST polluters.

America has done a very good job cleaning things up compared to other nations from what I've seen, even if we "allegedly" pollute more. It's not just our lifestyles (which has actually made our standard of living cleaner and healthier overall) but there are a lot more of us.

And I'll still take an automobile over horse feces all over the streets, which dried and got inhaled giving people lock jaw, or splattered all over people's clothes in the rain, bringing it into every home.

You are correct that air pollution isn't new. America (ironically largely through the efforts of the Nixon administration) has done a tremendous job of cleaning up our industrial pollutants.

your claim that Gov't is the biggest polluter I would think is only true if you are counting utility companies somehow as part of the government.

I think I would still prefer horse poop over mercury water pollution however.

banyon
05-23-2006, 03:22 PM
It's considerably less presumptuous than to say we have "everything" to do with it.

Please post where anyone presented your straw man.

banyon
05-23-2006, 03:39 PM
Have you ever read the Kyoto Protocol? ... Oh, and there are punitive fines for not meeting the goals.

I have, have you?

where are the alleged fines?

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 03:46 PM
um, that's why I boldfaced it for you the first time...
I will admit that that statement was too generalized. I should have said environmentalism instead. I don’t have problems with sound environmental policy. I have problems with environmentalism as a tool. Have you read that Kyoto Accord yet?

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 03:48 PM
Here is another little talked about subject. If you blindly follow the environmentalists, you would think, “The US uses 25% of the world resources”. But what they are not telling you is that they are measuring energy purchases based on the origin of the company, not where the energy was used. That would not help their case. They also fail to mention the significant percentage of the worlds products are made by American companies both in the US and abroad. Most of the world good, America bad. It’s BS.

banyon
05-23-2006, 04:01 PM
I will admit that that statement was too generalized. I should have said environmentalism instead. I don’t have problems with sound environmental policy. I have problems with environmentalism as a tool. Have you read that Kyoto Accord yet?


http://i.cannot.undo.it/signs/games/monopoly/?pic=chance2&text=Please+go+back+1+post&fontsize=14&move2=&move=&font=pointy&allow=046648

RaiderH8r
05-23-2006, 04:10 PM
Please post where anyone presented your straw man.
That would be aLgore's OP.

banyon
05-23-2006, 04:23 PM
That would be aLgore's OP.

If you mean that humans are not responsible for the majority of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere then you are correct.

if you mean that we are not responsible for the relevant increase in emissions and temperature...well that is the scientific consensus, so you'd be disagreeing with them and Gore.

RaiderH8r
05-23-2006, 04:30 PM
If you mean that humans are not responsible for the majority of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere then you are correct.

if you mean that we are not responsible for the relevant increase in emissions and temperature...well that is the scientific consensus, so you'd be disagreeing with them and Gore.
Consensus? There's roughly 15,000 scientists that disagree with the aforementioned assertion.

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 04:38 PM
Consensus? There's roughly 15,000 scientists that disagree with the aforementioned assertion.
They don't count because they don't fit what we are trying to do here. Hey wait a minute, I though decent was a good thing. Now I’m all fugged up. Shiate.

banyon
05-23-2006, 04:57 PM
Consensus? There's roughly 15,000 scientists that disagree with the aforementioned assertion.


I hope you weren't referring to the refuted objections of the skeptics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201677.html

Out of curiosity, how many scientists do you guys think there are?

It's still over 90% agreement no matter how you slice it.

There are still scientists who dispute that cigarette smoke is harmful to your health, but I don't think the surgeon general is changing the warning anytime soon.

Here's the bottom line:

If you guys are right and it doesn't exist, then at worst some corporations will have to outfit their point sources of pollution with some unnecessary equipment/ techniques, which may impact their bottom line and current profit margins.

If you guys are wrong, then our inaction could lead to some pretty heinous environmental consequences.

I don't know why we shouldn't play it safe and take the @90% of scientists views under advisement.

banyon
05-23-2006, 04:58 PM
BTW, Velvet, did you ever find those fines in the Protocol? ROFL

BucEyedPea
05-23-2006, 06:42 PM
your claim that Gov't is the biggest polluter I would think is only true if you are counting utility companies somehow as part of the government.
How 'bout underground testing of bombs, experiments on civilians with drugs, how about Chernoble, how about TVA. It' s govt agencies like the epa that allow a certain amount of pollutants. The bombs alone do it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind too.

I think I would still prefer horse poop over mercury water pollution however.
Lol...well of course.BTW don't those legal vaccines carry a certain amount of mercury in them? I think so.

Velvet_Jones
05-24-2006, 08:39 AM
where are the alleged fines?


Yes I have.

I really wish you would use that thing that’s on your shoulders. I guess I have to spell this out for you. The punitive fines are the only way that a democratic federal government can comply. How else are they going to implement this? The Kyoto Accord expects that the governments of the world must enforce what is agreed to. In a free market society, how do you do that without fines or government take-over of the offending sector? Just because it is not specifically stated in the accord doesn’t mean that reality is not an issue. Because of the way that the treaty is written means that the enforcement is from the governments of the world, which means fines. Not to mention the billions (with a ‘b’) that it would cost the economy to comply. It’s a loose-loose issue from a business prospective.

The simple fact is that the newly industrialized countries have an advantage because they are using newer technologies (pioneered by the US, Japan, and Eastern Europe), which makes it easier for them to comply. In some sectors, we are dealing with technology from WWII. This is the exact reason it’s a bad idea. Due to environmental regulations (not totally a bad thing), new business infrastructure in the US must comply with stricter environmental rules. What are we to do with existing infrastructure? Close them down?

Apparently you are a pie in the sky dude that does not consider how you implement an idea. It’s obvious to me that you’re not in an occupation that is responsible for trivial things like making something work. You need to find a tree to hug or a spotted owl to save. Maybe a precious western snail darter? It will be OK.

banyon
05-24-2006, 08:57 AM
Yes I have.

I really wish you would use that thing that’s on your shoulders. I guess I have to spell this out for you. The punitive fines are the only way that a democratic federal government can comply. How else are they going to implement this? The Kyoto Accord expects that the governments of the world must enforce what is agreed to. In a free market society, how do you do that without fines or government take-over of the offending sector? Just because it is not specifically stated in the accord doesn’t mean that reality is not an issue. Because of the way that the treaty is written means that the enforcement is from the governments of the world, which means fines. Not to mention the billions (with a ‘b’) that it would cost the economy to comply. It’s a loose-loose issue from a business prospective.

The simple fact is that the newly industrialized countries have an advantage because they are using newer technologies (pioneered by the US, Japan, and Eastern Europe), which makes it easier for them to comply. In some sectors, we are dealing with technology from WWII. This is the exact reason it’s a bad idea. Due to environmental regulations (not totally a bad thing), new business infrastructure in the US must comply with stricter environmental rules. What are we to do with existing infrastructure? Close them down?

Apparently you are a pie in the sky dude that does not consider how you implement an idea. It’s obvious to me that you’re not in an occupation that is responsible for trivial things like making something work. You need to find a tree to hug or a spotted owl to save. Maybe a precious western snail darter? It will be OK.

No. No fines in the agreement means no fines have been agreed to.

Just because you shot off at the mouth about how you'd read the treaty and found out that you are dead wrong doesn't mean that you should try to make s*** up now to try to dig out of your hole.

Here's a comparison treaty:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/98c9_en.html

notice how they sat that they are going to fine people and then they spell out how they are going to do it?

They don't um, not say it and hope that they can later do it.

When treaties don't mention sanctions, then that means that it is simply up to the word of the governments involved to follow it.

For instance, the US hasn't paid it's treaty-obliged U.N. dues, for quite some time. We are in violation of the treaty. But no one is going to come and fine us. Go buy an intro text on international law or something and get back to me.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 09:38 AM
When treaties don't mention sanctions, then that means that it is simply up to the word of the governments involved to follow it.

For instance, the US hasn't paid it's treaty-obliged U.N. dues, for quite some time. We are in violation of the treaty. But no one is going to come and fine us. Go buy an intro text on international law or something and get back to me.

Another example of why the UN doesn't work and overrides national sovereignty.

IMO, we should have all treaties signed under the UN umbrella that have provisions overriding our Constitution and sovereignty, particularly bypassing local areas rights to govern themselves unconstitutional. Thus declaring these treaties as null & void. Anything illegal under our laws, or which violate our public policies should be considered unenforceable in order to maintain sovereignty and not the UN as a superior law enforcer. Wtf?

banyon
05-24-2006, 09:46 AM
Another example of why the UN doesn't work and overrides national sovereignty.

IMO, we should have all treaties signed under the UN umbrella that have provisions overriding our Constitution and sovereignty, particularly bypassing local areas rights to govern themselves unconstitutional. Thus declaring these treaties as null & void. Anything illegal under our laws, or which violate our public policies should be considered unenforceable in order to maintain sovereignty and not the UN as a superior law enforcer. Wtf?


Our constitution is superior to our U.N. Charter obligations.

If they were inconsistent, we would have to amend our constitution.

Same with any other country.

RaiderH8r
05-24-2006, 09:55 AM
I hope you weren't referring to the refuted objections of the skeptics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201677.html

Out of curiosity, how many scientists do you guys think there are?

It's still over 90% agreement no matter how you slice it.

There are still scientists who dispute that cigarette smoke is harmful to your health, but I don't think the surgeon general is changing the warning anytime soon.

Here's the bottom line:

If you guys are right and it doesn't exist, then at worst some corporations will have to outfit their point sources of pollution with some unnecessary equipment/ techniques, which may impact their bottom line and current profit margins.

If you guys are wrong, then our inaction could lead to some pretty heinous environmental consequences.

I don't know why we shouldn't play it safe and take the @90% of scientists views under advisement.
Nothing like spending other people's money to make you happy. If its unnecessary then it turns out to be a tremendous blunder in terms of cost, cutting into working capital reserves, leverage, and, ultimately, what can be spent on employing a broader workforce or reinvesting in improvements and techniques. All of this driving down the value of the company and subsequently the shares of that company. Living off the gov't teet may be ok for you in your retirement but I don't expect 1. Social security to be available to me in my retirement 2. if it is the retirement age will be so high it won't matter or the benefits so low I'll be living in pig shit which is unacceptable 3. to work past the age of 52, because **** work, I like play.

I bust my ass to have the things I want and I don't need jackholes imposing some bullshit policy position that effects my life for the cause of their "feelings" and their ideas that corporations maintain an infinite amount of wealth that can be pissed away on whim and speculation.

keg in kc
05-24-2006, 10:02 AM
I bust my ass to have the things I want and I don't need jackholes imposing some bullshit policy position that effects my life for the cause of their "feelings" and their ideas that corporations maintain an infinite amount of wealth that can be pissed away on whim and speculation....and I don't care if every icecap on the planet melts in the next hundred years because I'll be dead and it won't affect me.

banyon
05-24-2006, 10:12 AM
Nothing like spending other people's money to make you happy. If its unnecessary then it turns out to be a tremendous blunder in terms of cost, cutting into working capital reserves, leverage, and, ultimately, what can be spent on employing a broader workforce or reinvesting in improvements and techniques. All of this driving down the value of the company and subsequently the shares of that company. Living off the gov't teet may be ok for you in your retirement but I don't expect 1. Social security to be available to me in my retirement 2. if it is the retirement age will be so high it won't matter or the benefits so low I'll be living in pig shit which is unacceptable 3. to work past the age of 52, because **** work, I like play.

I bust my ass to have the things I want and I don't need jackholes imposing some bullshit policy position that effects my life for the cause of their "feelings" and their ideas that corporations maintain an infinite amount of wealth that can be pissed away on whim and speculation.

what's the matter can't save up for that ostentatious sports car/SUV so that you can show off? :)

RaiderH8r
05-24-2006, 10:35 AM
what's the matter can't save up for that ostentatious sports car/SUV so that you can show off? :)
If you want my money at least have the decency to ask for it like the usual bum on the street. And show a little gratitude to those that provide the financial support on which the welfare economy of this country is based.

And if I want an ostentatious sports car or SUV or yacht or mansion or$2000 bottle of wine I can get it. Why? Because the money is mine, I earned it, I get to spend it how I wish. At least a mugger has the decency to take my money face to face.

RaiderH8r
05-24-2006, 10:37 AM
...and I don't care if every icecap on the planet melts in the next hundred years because I'll be dead and it won't affect me.
You do realize that the ice has been melting, consistantly, for the 10,000 years or so since most of the northern hemisphere was in an ice age right?

Meteorologists and climatologists can't predict next week's weather with any accuracy, what leads you to believe than can predict next century's with any?

banyon
05-24-2006, 11:01 AM
If you want my money at least have the decency to ask for it like the usual bum on the street. And show a little gratitude to those that provide the financial support on which the welfare economy of this country is based.

And if I want an ostentatious sports car or SUV or yacht or mansion or$2000 bottle of wine I can get it. Why? Because the money is mine, I earned it, I get to spend it how I wish. At least a mugger has the decency to take my money face to face.

Yes, I am taking your money for my own personal use. :rolleyes:

Ever use the public highway system?

Maybe you should just be responsible for maintaining your section and your neighbor should be responsible for theirs. We'll see what kind of highway we wind up with. At least you could keep the pressciousss!!! all of the money!!!

RaiderH8r
05-24-2006, 11:36 AM
Yes, I am taking your money for my own personal use. :rolleyes:

Ever use the public highway system?

Maybe you should just be responsible for maintaining your section and your neighbor should be responsible for theirs. We'll see what kind of highway we wind up with. At least you could keep the pressciousss!!! all of the money!!!
If you're in a position so as not to require the welfare services of this nation then, by all means, feel free to toss your money wherever you please. So long as you recognize that you don't have the right to determine what I do with my money or my life. Knock yourself out. Drink booze, do drugs, bone hookers, whatever you like to do. I don't care. Just don't show up at my door (politically or otherwise) expecting me to foot the bill for your continued stupidity.

Now, on to your other points.

The highway system is funded through a user fee, the federal gas tax. So your example falls flat.

And it's not all taxes I have a problem with. I don't mind highway tax funds. Highways facillitate commerce and mobility. They have a broad and positive impact on the national economy. It's a fairly sound national investment.

banyon
05-24-2006, 01:12 PM
If you're in a position so as not to require the welfare services of this nation then, by all means, feel free to toss your money wherever you please. So long as you recognize that you don't have the right to determine what I do with my money or my life. Knock yourself out. Drink booze, do drugs, bone hookers, whatever you like to do. I don't care. Just don't show up at my door (politically or otherwise) expecting me to foot the bill for your continued stupidity.

Now, on to your other points.

The highway system is funded through a user fee, the federal gas tax. So your example falls flat.

And it's not all taxes I have a problem with. I don't mind highway tax funds. Highways facillitate commerce and mobility. They have a broad and positive impact on the national economy. It's a fairly sound national investment.

Yes, and pollution taxes (usually directed at the source and not you unless you are a burgeoining industrialist) also facilitate a higher quality of living. It is a public use.

Your argument basically amounts to ":deevee: Waaah! I don't like paying taxes"

So I notice that you (and to a lesser extent Velvet) decide basically
to reply to the "assume that I'm wrong" portion of post #43 and decide not to address the "assume that you are wrong" portion of post #43.

I don't know if you are familiar with cost-benefit risk analysis, but that's not how you do it.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 01:38 PM
Our constitution is superior to our U.N. Charter obligations.

If they were inconsistent, we would have to amend our constitution.

Same with any other country.

I don't follow your post....if our Constitutionis superior then why would we have to amend our Constitution...and not our UN treaties?

Just so you understand, I'm talkin' about all the various treaties, not just the one with the UN on its Charter.

Treaties are supreme law under our Constitution...but there are inconsistencies already. Just under the trade treaties, local laws are being bypassed already.

Velvet_Jones
05-24-2006, 01:51 PM
No. No fines in the agreement means no fines have been agreed to.

This is the most naive statement that I ever heard. How else does the US federal government enforce any practices that are not market driven? They fine you until you do what your told. You can’t be that much of an idiot, can you?

banyon
05-24-2006, 02:34 PM
This is the most naive statement that I ever heard. How else does the US federal government enforce any practices that are not market driven? They fine you until you do what your told. You can’t be that much of an idiot, can you?

International treaties do not work the way your traffic ticket works.

You could not be more wrong if you tried.

Suspension and termination
If a party has materially violated, or breached, its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. The issue must be presented to an international tribunal or arbitror (usually specified in the treaty itself) to legally establish that a sufficiently serious breach has in fact occurred. Otherwise, a party that prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspends or terminates its own obligations due to an alleged breach itself runs the risk of being held liable for breach. Additionally, parties may choose to overlook treaty breaches while still maintaining their own obligations towards the party in breach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

These are basic precepts of international treaty law. Feel free to do your own research into this endlessly fascinating topic. You will discover that, in fact, treaties do not have the effect of the U.S. criminal code.

banyon
05-24-2006, 02:35 PM
I don't follow your post....if our Constitutionis superior then why would we have to amend our Constitution...and not our UN treaties?

Just so you understand, I'm talkin' about all the various treaties, not just the one with the UN on its Charter.

Treaties are supreme law under our Constitution...but there are inconsistencies already. Just under the trade treaties, local laws are being bypassed already.

No. I think you misunderstand me.

Treaties are inferior to our Constitution, but are superior to laws passed by Congress or State governments.

Velvet_Jones
05-24-2006, 03:22 PM
These are basic precepts of international treaty law. Feel free to do your own research into this endlessly fascinating topic. You will discover that, in fact, treaties do not have the effect of the U.S. criminal code.
Listen chucklehead, unlike the apparent fantasyland you live in, the only way this will work is if it’s mandated by the federal government. It has everything to do with the implementation. If our government agrees to the treaty, how does it get industries to comply? I don’t know how to say it any plainer than that.

Here is Banyon’s fantasyland in a nutshell. The US federal government signs the Kyoto treaty. The government then goes to certain industries that they think are the biggest offenders. They politely ask the companies and the shareholders to spend billions of dollars to comply with the treaty. The company and share holders say Yeeeeh. They implement the changes, which work famously, and everyone lives happily ever after.

It’s obvious that you have never been involved with any industry that is market driven or you would have the complete opposite view. Or, of course, you could be an idiot. You pick.

banyon
05-24-2006, 03:37 PM
Listen chucklehead, unlike the apparent fantasyland you live in, the only way this will work is if it’s mandated by the federal government. It has everything to do with the implementation. If our government agrees to the treaty, how does it get industries to comply? I don’t know how to say it any plainer than that.

Here is Banyon’s fantasyland in a nutshell. The US federal government signs the Kyoto treaty. The government then goes to certain industries that they think are the biggest offenders. They politely ask the companies and the shareholders to spend billions of dollars to comply with the treaty. The company and share holders say Yeeeeh. They implement the changes, which work famously, and everyone lives happily ever after.

It’s obvious that you have never been involved with any industry that is market driven or you would have the complete opposite view. Or, of course, you could be an idiot. You pick.

Unlike you, my argument is not so desperate that I need ad hominem attacks to bolster myself with a semblance of credibility.

You are attempting to shift the argument now that you are shown to be wrong. Countries cannot be fined in the protocol which is what you said.You even said that I must not have read the treaty because I didn't know that. Now you are shifting to some retracted position that governments can fine individual corporate polluter/emitters. Well no s***? They can? Of course our federal government has the authority to do that, even if they are doing so to try to meet standards of an environmental treaty. But of course, it is also true that they don't have to do it that way either.

I guess you are not aware of the many voluntary compliance programs that are done under the auspices of environmental protection already.

Not to mention the many programs which use market-driven incentive structures along with subsidies and tax breaks to achieve the results.

With each post you make on this topic, the misconceptions and inaccuracies continue to pile up.

keg in kc
05-26-2006, 03:26 AM
Review from CHUD.com (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=6783):

REVIEW: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

05.25.06
By Devin Faraci
In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore stands before a group of true believers and delivers a fairly engaging Power Point presentation about global warming. The same dynamic will be played out in movie theaters, except that cinemagoers will also get Tales of Young Al Gore, stories from his life that end up having some bearing on his beliefs, values, or occasionally serve as a metaphor for our current climate change problem.

Which leaves me with a very simple question – what’s the point of this movie? Who is this movie supposed to reach? Even if you could drag a conservative into the theater with you, your right wing companion would tune out as soon as Al Gore showed up onscreen, which is pretty much as soon as the movie begins. This is a film whose audience is already delineated – the faithful, made up of Democrats and left-leaning independents. Unlike Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 this movie won’t mobilize people to theaters because there’s no controversy – An Inconvenient Truth won’t be the kind of movie you must see just to have an opinion about it at the water cooler on Monday. But it is the kind of movie you must see if you want to be educated about the stark facts of global warming.

Gore’s presentation is surprisingly personable and humorous – maybe the whole point of this film was to help him shed his “wooden board” persona before mounting another assault on the White House in 2008. Unsurprisingly, his presentation is very convincing. Using simple science and facts (I know, I can already imagine the science-hating Bible Belt recoiling in horror like a vampire at a cross, an analogy that tickles me too much) he shows how human pollution has created a perilous situation in our global climate.

But you knew that. Everyone with a working brain who has seen the weather of the last few years knows that. The thing is almost no one denies global warming anymore – what the dishonest Right does now is deny human involvement. This is usually accomplished by way of unscrupulous scientists working for oil companies, and by Bush’s lackeys in regulatory agencies. The best parts of the film expose these people – at least that creates some sense of outrage. Much of the rest of the movie creates a sinking sense of doom. Holy shit, you realize, we’re already ****ed.

I don’t think that’s what Gore wants the film to say, but you can’t help picking that up. You may also feel doomed during the Gore biographical bits, or at least I did. Despite what some of my readers might assume, I don’t like Al Gore. While I respect his leadership on the environment, I consider him to be a hack politician in many other ways. One of the messages of An Inconvenient Truth is supposed to be that he’s not a hack anymore, I think. The movie tries to position him as a man with a quest, a lonely warrior traveling around the globe spreading his doomsday scenario – maybe they should have called it Have iBook, Will Travel. It almost succeeds, but there’s something so deeply untrustworthy about most politicians that I couldn’t help but realize that the biographical and behind the scenes material was as realistic as the usual fluff films they play at nominating conventions. It’s not that I expected the film to harshly criticize Gore in any way, shape or form, but the handjob is too obvious to ignore.

Which is a pity, because again, the message is right on. I wish that there was a way to get the facts in this film in front of the audience that needs to see it, the audience who take the word of human mockeries like Michael Crichton and Michelle Malkin as gospel. I wish this film could be played in grade schools, but the anti-science fanatics and religious zealots would never allow it. It’s the usual dilemma with films like this – the only people likely to go see a global warming documentary are going to be the people who already care about global warming. So here’s what you do – find a friend who doesn’t know much about global warming and treat them to the film. Find a friend who doesn’t believe in the human contribution to global warming and stop talking to them.

8.6 out of 10