But I have a feeling this simply comes down to people not liking statistics being manipulated.
well...yeah. I mean I can't speak for others, but personally that's a big issue for me.
There is nothing worse to argue about on the internets or in congress than that. Most people are smart. Most people understand that Bush can say jobs are going up while studies show poverty is on the rise. Statistics. Lets stop pussyfooting around the real issue.
not to mention the fact that the term "scientist" is an incredibly vague label, and it seems to be thrown about pretty wantonly with very little clarification...on both sides.
Yeah the whole article is very vague. The fact that scientists agree with the science in the movie is surely not surprising as it's the theoretical aspects of global warming that cause all the debate not the science. But the article looks at things the wrong way round anyway. Gore's not a scientist. His book and his movie are based on the work of scientists so the fact that 19 (and presumably a lot more) agree with him is hardly surprising. At least two of the five people quoted in that article know him personally so for all we know they're agreeing with their own work.
There's no doubt that we're raping this planet of it's resources, we're polluting the air the we breath, the water that we drink and the food that we eat. We do need to do something about this. But as ever we have rich, powerful and corrupt people trying to lead the charge and stear us god-know where. How can anyone not be incredibly sceptical about that?
The craziest thing about this thread, and this debate in general, is that there should not be "another side" to preventing Global Warming. If ALL scientists acknowledge that using up resources and polluting the Earth is a bad thing...then what are we really debating....whether we are destroying our Earth right away or down the road?
Unless republicans are arguing that being global-friendly is a bad thing, they should really just keep quiet.
Are you really comparing a Time magazine story to the current body of academic research on global warming?
No, nice try though. I'm gonna take a guess and say that you were too young to remember the broo-ha-ha that came with the "coming Ace Ice" back in the 70's. It was a HELL of a LOT more than one issue of Time my friend. New media overkill aside, the parallels between the two "academic bod(ies) of research" on both subjects in particular are quite something. Not to mention the-sky-is-falling attitude that prevailed. I think the main difference (and I could be wrong about this) is that today, you come under immediate attack for bringing into question any data which may be used to prove (or disprove) one thing or another. Which, is what I believe, SCIENCE is supposed to be all about, no?
I don't have much more to contribute to this cluster fugg, but I'm guessing (one good guess deserves another) you aren't involved in research or have much of a clue what you're talking about. Science is not about "proving" theories. The number of theories that can be proven, or laws, are small. For instance, it is difficult to say if secondhand smoking is dangerous because of the slipperiness of causality. But if you find a mountain of evidence all pointing the same direction, this has a strong impact on scientific thought. Nobody would use a variety of scientific or social theories that are currently out of vogue for this reason. Global warming is one of them.
What has more of an effect on CO2 levels on the planet and causes global temperature level increases?
All human activity or the amount of radiation emitted by the sun?
Also, I've seen Kyoto brought up a few times. How is it the US has does a much better job at decreasing output and countries like my own (who supported Kyoto) have done worse and now admit they can't come anywhere close to their goals?
But anyways. I'm a believer in everyone doing their part. For instance... I recycle everything (Including composting). I refuse to buy a car and walk to work everyday and use public transit when needed. Once a year I go out and plant trees. But I don't understand why it's such a faux pas to question Mr. Gore. In the quote I posted above, he even admits to doing an "over-representation of factual presentations".
You make it obvious not only from what you write, but by what you selectively quote from me that you're seeing this through a very narrow lens.
Please to elaborate.
I have made it abundantly clear on several occasions that yes, there are plenty of things we can do to make the world a better place to live for us and our children... starting with ourselves. And that yes, I am all in favor of policy changes as long as they are sensible and well thought out, which is often NOT the case when dealing with issues that tend to affect people emotionally... such as this.
And not for nothing, but Kyoto was fucked from the jump for the simple fact that it intentionally did NOT hold other countries with far greater records of environmental abuses (China for one) to the same standards that we were supposed to adhere to. Change that and I'm all for it.
This is all so similar to the half hearted republican double speak I quoted above that its funny.(from the environment commitee.) My argument is that republicans in power are so beholden to their corporate backers that they are unwilling to challenge the status quo, energy-wise. Its much easier to trot out a few skeptical scientists and then shift the blame to the an easy scapegoat, like say Al Gore. The republicans like to tout "common-sense solutions" (such as paying everyone a hundred bucks), instead of the real drastic initiatives we need, because then they can say they agree with doing the right thing, while at the same time undermining it...
You make it obvious not only from what you write, but by what you selectively quote from me that you're seeing this through a very narrow lens.
Please to elaborate.
You've gotta be kidding me. Go back and read my initial posts, and then read your responses to them. Instead of actually refuting ANYTHING I had to say, all you do is attack or dismiss me as a typical right winger, conservative, republican, Bill O'Reily-talking-point-having, blah-blah-blah.... boring. I would say that's a pretty myopic arguement you've got running here, pal.
But the best part is when you accuse me of questioning other's motives!
not to mention the fact that the term "scientist" is an incredibly vague label, and it seems to be thrown about pretty wantonly with very little clarification...on both sides.
i wonder what the reactions would be if the AP ran an article with the headline "Military experts OK Bush's invasion of Iraq" but then it turned out it was only a handful and a few of them were close friends of Bush.
i wonder what the reactions would be if the AP ran an article with the headline "Military experts OK Bush's invasion of Iraq" but then it turned out it was only a handful and a few of them were close friends of Bush.
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
Has anyone in this clusterfuck ever taken a climatology class?
Science by duelling press releases =
For the last 26 years I have worked in the area of Environmental Stewardship within the Chemical Industry.
I've just spent this morning meeting with an organization called "Green Seal" which for the last 12 years has spearheaded a movement towards mandating environmentally preferable products for use in American Industry.
For the last 10 years I have been a member of a VOC(Volatile Organic Compound) Task Force that was formed to reduce emissions from both fuels and manufacturing processes.
I have worked with most of the 14 California Air Districts to develop products that carry a "Clean Air Certificate" as mandated by the State Of California.
I am currently involved in both the OTC and LADCO state environmental groups who make up a total of 18 states that are following California's lead towards elimination of Ozone Depleting emissions.
I am the owner of 2 patents that directly impact our enivironment, one of which was just approved by the EPA and if implemented will reduce the amount of pesticides used in one particular application by 80% equaling 2 million gallons less that will enter our environment.
I have worked with Scandinavian countries on their Bra Mijoval and White Swan/Black Swan environmental programs.
I have worked with the CSPA on "Green" product initiatives and have been involved with the development of fuel additives that reduce the amount of emissions created by over the road vehicles.
I know ridiculously obscure facts like that over the last 5 years the State of California alone has produced 1 ton of ozone depleting gases from the use of temporary aerosol hair coloring!!!
Because I live and breath this each and every day I also know that Global Warming would and did exist before man ever used a fuel or chemical. I also know that the earths environment is cyclical and for man to think they can reverse naturally occuring weather events is absurd.
I also know that there is an AMAZING amount of enviromental stewardship taking place on every governmental level and very little of it is partisan politics.
What a lot of people don't realize is that prior to Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA there was NO environmental stewardship taking place whatsoever in this country.
While the crux of Gore's message is based in fact(Global Warming is a threat) his unfounded assumptions and "predictions" are just that and should not be defined as "truths".
If you want to take his message at face value and ride Gore's dick into impending doom go for it. I'm old enough to have lived through the "Late Great Planet Earth" the end will come in 1988 bullshit.....and I even believed it.....but now I know better.
When God/Nature/plug in your on belief system here, decides it's time for the planet to self destruct it's gonna happen regardless as to how much fuel we burned or how many cows fart.......THAT is a fact that no one can deny.
Sounds like you are talking about the guy I voted for in 2000...
Ralph Nader.
Man, there's the understatement of the thread right there. Fuck that guy.
Also, I'm still reeling that a GOP press release was posted as "proof" of Gore's wrongness. Wow, that's a doozy.
At any rate:
not to mention the fact that the term "scientist" is an incredibly vague label, and it seems to be thrown about pretty wantonly with very little clarification...on both sides.
Hell yeah! Fuck a scientist. Tell me what the scienticians are saying! And if possible, please tell me via an informative short film narrated by Troy McClure, who I remember from such educational films as Someone's in the Kitchen with DNA and Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory.
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
Sounds like you are talking about the guy I voted for in 2000...
Ralph Nader.
Man, there's the understatement of the thread right there. Fuck that guy.
Also, I'm still reeling that a GOP press release was posted as "proof" of Gore's wrongness. Wow, that's a doozy.
At any rate:
not to mention the fact that the term "scientist" is an incredibly vague label, and it seems to be thrown about pretty wantonly with very little clarification...on both sides.
Hell yeah! Fuck a scientist. Tell me what the scienticians are saying! And if possible, please tell me via an informative short film narrated by Troy McClure, who I remember from such educational films as Someone's in the Kitchen with DNA and Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory. Fuck the scienticians!! What do the scientologists have to say???
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
You'd call him irrelevant. Or maybe poke fun at his private press records. It's just weird that you seem to be able to relate to Bush but not Gore when they are both "do as I say not as I do" elites.
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?
I think the biggest misnomer in this whole argument is that THERE ARE NO ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS!!!!. The only debate is what effect man is having/has had on SPEEDING UP NATURALLY OCCURRING GLOBAL WARMING!!
Has anyone in this clusterfuck ever taken a climatology class?
Science by duelling press releases =
For the last 26 years I have worked in the area of Environmental Stewardship within the Chemical Industry.
I've just spent this morning meeting with an organization called "Green Seal" which for the last 12 years has spearheaded a movement towards mandating environmentally preferable products for use in American Industry.
For the last 10 years I have been a member of a VOC(Volatile Organic Compound) Task Force that was formed to reduce emissions from both fuels and manufacturing processes.
I have worked with most of the 14 California Air Districts to develop products that carry a "Clean Air Certificate" as mandated by the State Of California.
I am currently involved in both the OTC and LADCO state environmental groups who make up a total of 18 states that are following California's lead towards elimination of Ozone Depleting emissions.
I am the owner of 2 patents that directly impact our enivironment, one of which was just approved by the EPA and if implemented will reduce the amount of pesticides used in one particular application by 80% equaling 2 million gallons less that will enter our environment.
I have worked with Scandinavian countries on their Bra Mijoval and White Swan/Black Swan environmental programs.
I have worked with the CSPA on "Green" product initiatives and have been involved with the development of fuel additives that reduce the amount of emissions created by over the road vehicles.
I know ridiculously obscure facts like that over the last 5 years the State of California alone has produced 1 ton of ozone depleting gases from the use of temporary aerosol hair coloring!!!
Because I live and breath this each and every day I also know that Global Warming would and did exist before man ever used a fuel or chemical. I also know that the earths environment is cyclical and for man to think they can reverse naturally occuring weather events is absurd.
I also know that there is an AMAZING amount of enviromental stewardship taking place on every governmental level and very little of it is partisan politics.
What a lot of people don't realize is that prior to Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA there was NO environmental stewardship taking place whatsoever in this country.
While the crux of Gore's message is based in fact(Global Warming is a threat) his unfounded assumptions and "predictions" are just that and should not be defined as "truths".
If you want to take his message at face value and ride Gore's dick into impending doom go for it. I'm old enough to have lived through the "Late Great Planet Earth" the end will come in 1988 bullshit.....and I even believed it.....but now I know better.
When God/Nature/plug in your on belief system here, decides it's time for the planet to self destruct it's gonna happen regardless as to how much fuel we burned or how many cows fart.......THAT is a fact that no one can deny.
I've been
I find your defeatist - "[When] it's time for the planet to self destruct it's gonna happen regardless as to how much fuel we burned or how many cows fart" -point of view depressing. It makes me think you would be just as happy finding ways to increase pollution if that is what you could get paid to do. I'm sure that is not true.The reason you have a job reducing pollution is because of Gore and Haden and people like them who worked hard to make reducing pollution a priority.
I am glad that in the days of Richard Nixon republicans were not on an anti-science crusade. DDT would have never been banned in todays climate where, for every expert who found that DDT caused decreases in bird populations, there was an expert who said it didn't. That expert would then say, the person who said it did ate an apple that had been grown with DDT.
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
You'd call him irrelevant. Or maybe poke fun at his private press records. It's just weird that you seem to be able to relate to Bush but not Gore when they are both "do as I say not as I do" elites.
Show me a post where I "relate" to GW Bush???
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
You'd call him irrelevant. Or maybe poke fun at his private press records. It's just weird that you seem to be able to relate to Bush but not Gore when they are both "do as I say not as I do" elites.
Show me a post where I "relate" to GW Bush???
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
Sorry, you relate to his causes or viewpoints. Like immigration, global warming, crusades, etc.
Has anyone in this clusterfuck ever taken a climatology class?
Science by duelling press releases =
For the last 26 years I have worked in the area of Environmental Stewardship within the Chemical Industry.
I've just spent this morning meeting with an organization called "Green Seal" which for the last 12 years has spearheaded a movement towards mandating environmentally preferable products for use in American Industry.
For the last 10 years I have been a member of a VOC(Volatile Organic Compound) Task Force that was formed to reduce emissions from both fuels and manufacturing processes.
I have worked with most of the 14 California Air Districts to develop products that carry a "Clean Air Certificate" as mandated by the State Of California.
I am currently involved in both the OTC and LADCO state environmental groups who make up a total of 18 states that are following California's lead towards elimination of Ozone Depleting emissions.
I am the owner of 2 patents that directly impact our enivironment, one of which was just approved by the EPA and if implemented will reduce the amount of pesticides used in one particular application by 80% equaling 2 million gallons less that will enter our environment.
I have worked with Scandinavian countries on their Bra Mijoval and White Swan/Black Swan environmental programs.
I have worked with the CSPA on "Green" product initiatives and have been involved with the development of fuel additives that reduce the amount of emissions created by over the road vehicles.
I know ridiculously obscure facts like that over the last 5 years the State of California alone has produced 1 ton of ozone depleting gases from the use of temporary aerosol hair coloring!!!
Because I live and breath this each and every day I also know that Global Warming would and did exist before man ever used a fuel or chemical. I also know that the earths environment is cyclical and for man to think they can reverse naturally occuring weather events is absurd.
I also know that there is an AMAZING amount of enviromental stewardship taking place on every governmental level and very little of it is partisan politics.
What a lot of people don't realize is that prior to Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA there was NO environmental stewardship taking place whatsoever in this country.
While the crux of Gore's message is based in fact(Global Warming is a threat) his unfounded assumptions and "predictions" are just that and should not be defined as "truths".
If you want to take his message at face value and ride Gore's dick into impending doom go for it. I'm old enough to have lived through the "Late Great Planet Earth" the end will come in 1988 bullshit.....and I even believed it.....but now I know better.
When God/Nature/plug in your on belief system here, decides it's time for the planet to self destruct it's gonna happen regardless as to how much fuel we burned or how many cows fart.......THAT is a fact that no one can deny.
I've been
I find your defeatist - "[When] it's time for the planet to self destruct it's gonna happen regardless as to how much fuel we burned or how many cows fart" -point of view depressing. It makes me think you would be just as happy finding ways to increase pollution if that is what you could get paid to do. I'm sure that is not true.The reason you have a job reducing pollution is because of Gore and Haden and people like them who worked hard to make reducing pollution a priority.
I am glad that in the days of Richard Nixon republicans were not on an anti-science crusade. DDT would have never been banned in todays climate where, for every expert who found that DDT caused decreases in bird populations, there was an expert who said it didn't. That expert would then say, the person who said it did ate an apple that had been grown with DDT.
I'd replace "defeatist" with "realist" and I can assure you there are opportunities within my industry to get paid while adding to the decline of our environment. I feel good about what I do and that is why I do it, certainly not because it pays better than the former position would.
The reason my associates and I are able to accomplish what we have has very little to do with politics and politicians. Overall I'd say that politicians of BOTH parties have made my job harder, not easier.
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
Rockadelic, where did you get the idea that Gore didn't do anything about climate change while he was in office? Too much talk radio?
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link: http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
You'd call him irrelevant. Or maybe poke fun at his private press records. It's just weird that you seem to be able to relate to Bush but not Gore when they are both "do as I say not as I do" elites.
Show me a post where I "relate" to GW Bush???
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
Sorry, you relate to his causes or viewpoints. Like immigration, global warming, crusades, etc.
Sabadabada reminds me more of
I am 100% against Bush's Immigration plan that includes amnesty and have said so on this board.....are you just making this shit up??
Comments
There is nothing worse to argue about on the internets or in congress than that. Most people are smart. Most people understand that Bush can say jobs are going up while studies show poverty is on the rise. Statistics. Lets stop pussyfooting around the real issue.
i STRONGLY disagree.
I figured as much, and that is where we will fundamentally disagree on most issues.
Yeah the whole article is very vague. The fact that scientists agree with the science in the movie is surely not surprising as it's the theoretical aspects of global warming that cause all the debate not the science. But the article looks at things the wrong way round anyway. Gore's not a scientist. His book and his movie are based on the work of scientists so the fact that 19 (and presumably a lot more) agree with him is hardly surprising. At least two of the five people quoted in that article know him personally so for all we know they're agreeing with their own work.
There's no doubt that we're raping this planet of it's resources, we're polluting the air the we breath, the water that we drink and the food that we eat. We do need to do something about this. But as ever we have rich, powerful and corrupt people trying to lead the charge and stear us god-know where. How can anyone not be incredibly sceptical about that?
Unless republicans are arguing that being global-friendly is a bad thing, they should really just keep quiet.
I don't have much more to contribute to this cluster fugg, but I'm guessing (one good guess deserves another) you aren't involved in research or have much of a clue what you're talking about. Science is not about "proving" theories. The number of theories that can be proven, or laws, are small. For instance, it is difficult to say if secondhand smoking is dangerous because of the slipperiness of causality. But if you find a mountain of evidence all pointing the same direction, this has a strong impact on scientific thought. Nobody would use a variety of scientific or social theories that are currently out of vogue for this reason. Global warming is one of them.
What has more of an effect on CO2 levels on the planet and causes global temperature level increases?
All human activity or the amount of radiation emitted by the sun?
Also, I've seen Kyoto brought up a few times. How is it the US has does a much better job at decreasing output and countries like my own (who supported Kyoto) have done worse and now admit they can't come anywhere close to their goals?
But anyways. I'm a believer in everyone doing their part. For instance... I recycle everything (Including composting). I refuse to buy a car and walk to work everyday and use public transit when needed. Once a year I go out and plant trees. But I don't understand why it's such a faux pas to question Mr. Gore. In the quote I posted above, he even admits to doing an "over-representation of factual presentations".
That alone should allow people to question him.
Please to elaborate.
This is all so similar to the half hearted republican double speak I quoted above that its funny.(from the environment commitee.) My argument is that republicans in power are so beholden to their corporate backers that they are unwilling to challenge the status quo, energy-wise. Its much easier to trot out a few skeptical scientists and then shift the blame to the an easy scapegoat, like say Al Gore. The republicans like to tout "common-sense solutions" (such as paying everyone a hundred bucks), instead of the real drastic initiatives we need, because then they can say they agree with doing the right thing, while at the same time undermining it...
You've gotta be kidding me.
Go back and read my initial posts, and then read your responses to them.
Instead of actually refuting ANYTHING I had to say, all you do is attack or dismiss me as a typical right winger, conservative, republican, Bill O'Reily-talking-point-having, blah-blah-blah.... boring.
I would say that's a pretty myopic arguement you've got running here, pal.
But the best part is when you accuse me of questioning other's motives!
Batman is a scientist
1. denial
2. anger
3. depression
4. acceptance
Life gets a little easier when you find out we won't be around whole lot longer.
They didn't? That sounds kind of familiar....
Science by duelling press releases =
Climate change was a fairly high priority - in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Gore presented a a comprehensive climate change action plan to serve as a framework for the next 4/8 years. Here's a link:
http://www.gcrio.org/USCCAP/toc.html
Here's a 1997 presentation on the plan's economic impact:
http://epw.senate.gov/105th/jorg0710.htm
This was pre-Kyoto, and one of the central parts of the plan was a "carbon tax" (BTU-based energy tax prorated across energy sources). The first attempt to implement it was in the House in 1994. It got shot down quickly thanks to intense lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute.
Nowadays the carbon tax is a favorite of moderate Republican economists like Greg Mankiw, who see it as a less complicated and less globally binding alternative to Kyoto Protocol membership. Needless to say they don't acknowledge Gore's attempt to do the same thing 12 years ago.
For the last 26 years I have worked in the area of Environmental Stewardship within the Chemical Industry.
I've just spent this morning meeting with an organization called "Green Seal" which for the last 12 years has spearheaded a movement towards mandating environmentally preferable products for use in American Industry.
For the last 10 years I have been a member of a VOC(Volatile Organic Compound) Task Force that was formed to reduce emissions from both fuels and manufacturing processes.
I have worked with most of the 14 California Air Districts to develop products that carry a "Clean Air Certificate" as mandated by the State Of California.
I am currently involved in both the OTC and LADCO state environmental groups who make up a total of 18 states that are following California's lead towards elimination of Ozone Depleting emissions.
I am the owner of 2 patents that directly impact our enivironment, one of which was just approved by the EPA and if implemented will reduce the amount of pesticides used in one particular application by 80% equaling 2 million gallons less that will enter our environment.
I have worked with Scandinavian countries on their Bra Mijoval and White Swan/Black Swan environmental programs.
I have worked with the CSPA on "Green" product initiatives and have been involved with the development of fuel additives that reduce the amount of emissions created by over the road vehicles.
I know ridiculously obscure facts like that over the last 5 years the State of California alone has produced 1 ton of ozone depleting gases from the use of temporary aerosol hair coloring!!!
Because I live and breath this each and every day I also know that Global Warming would and did exist before man ever used a fuel or chemical. I also know that the earths environment is cyclical and for man to think they can reverse naturally occuring weather events is absurd.
I also know that there is an AMAZING amount of enviromental stewardship taking place on every governmental level and very little of it is partisan politics.
What a lot of people don't realize is that prior to Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA there was NO environmental stewardship taking place whatsoever in this country.
While the crux of Gore's message is based in fact(Global Warming is a threat) his unfounded assumptions and "predictions" are just that and should not be defined as "truths".
If you want to take his message at face value and ride Gore's dick into impending doom go for it. I'm old enough to have lived through the "Late Great Planet Earth" the end will come in 1988 bullshit.....and I even believed it.....but now I know better.
When God/Nature/plug in your on belief system here, decides it's time for the planet to self destruct it's gonna happen regardless as to how much fuel we burned or how many cows fart.......THAT is a fact that no one can deny.
Man, there's the understatement of the thread right there. Fuck that guy.
Also, I'm still reeling that a GOP press release was posted as "proof" of Gore's wrongness. Wow, that's a doozy.
At any rate:
Hell yeah! Fuck a scientist. Tell me what the scienticians are saying! And if possible, please tell me via an informative short film narrated by Troy McClure, who I remember from such educational films as Someone's in the Kitchen with DNA and Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory.
No doubt Gore presented and attempted to pass some enironmental laws...my question was what did he actually accomplish??
I don't care who you are...If I'm told that I should sell my SUV and do whatever I can to stop burning fossil fuels by a guy in a Private Jet I'm gonna call hypocrisy, and that's all I attempted to do initially in this thread.
Man, there's the understatement of the thread right there. Fuck that guy.
Also, I'm still reeling that a GOP press release was posted as "proof" of Gore's wrongness. Wow, that's a doozy.
At any rate:
Hell yeah! Fuck a scientist. Tell me what the scienticians are saying! And if possible, please tell me via an informative short film narrated by Troy McClure, who I remember from such educational films as Someone's in the Kitchen with DNA and Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory.
Fuck the scienticians!! What do the scientologists have to say???
And if he lived on a granola commune in Vermont you'd pay full attention to what he has to say?
Probably not but I wouldn't be able to call him a hypocrite then could I???
You'd call him irrelevant. Or maybe poke fun at his private press records. It's just weird that you seem to be able to relate to Bush but not Gore when they are both "do as I say not as I do" elites.
who cares if he is a hypocrite. the people funding the message that global warming doesnt exist are the polluters who make tons of money and fear legislation that would restrict how they operate. you admit that global warming is a threat, right? so just leave it at that. is gore speculating and exaggerating as to how severe and imminent the damage will be? perhaps, but that really isn't the point. his message is to take measures to prevent global warming. what's wrong with that? keep in mind that the anti-gore message has a terrible agenda. what harmful agenda do gore and the anti-global warming scientists have?
I think the biggest misnomer in this whole argument is that THERE ARE NO ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS!!!!. The only debate is what effect man is having/has had on SPEEDING UP NATURALLY OCCURRING GLOBAL WARMING!!
Can we all agree on at least this one point??
I've been
I find your defeatist - "[When] it's time for the planet to self destruct it's gonna happen regardless as to how much fuel we burned or how many cows fart" -point of view depressing. It makes me think you would be just as happy finding ways to increase pollution if that is what you could get paid to do. I'm sure that is not true.The reason you have a job reducing pollution is because of Gore and Haden and people like them who worked hard to make reducing pollution a priority.
I am glad that in the days of Richard Nixon republicans were not on an anti-science crusade. DDT would have never been banned in todays climate where, for every expert who found that DDT caused decreases in bird populations, there was an expert who said it didn't. That expert would then say, the person who said it did ate an apple that had been grown with DDT.
Show me a post where I "relate" to GW Bush???
The problem with SS is that if you don't fall in step with the overwhelming left leaning politics of the board you're automatically labeled a Bush Dick Sucker or Sabadababa.....depending on what the poster feels is the worse insult of those two!!
Sorry, you relate to his causes or viewpoints. Like immigration, global warming, crusades, etc.
Sabadabada reminds me more of
I'd replace "defeatist" with "realist" and I can assure you there are opportunities within my industry to get paid while adding to the decline of our environment. I feel good about what I do and that is why I do it, certainly not because it pays better than the former position would.
The reason my associates and I are able to accomplish what we have has very little to do with politics and politicians. Overall I'd say that politicians of BOTH parties have made my job harder, not easier.
I am 100% against Bush's Immigration plan that includes amnesty and have said so on this board.....are you just making this shit up??