Ok I just dont get it, whats so funny?

PERFECT POST!

People are missing the point..... We are simply speeding up a natural process. Who knows what the potential impact could be.

Freaking Republicans....

Burger King and others used to buy meat from Brazilian cattle ranches that were created by deforestation... except that the topsoil quickly eroded and the grazing lands could no longer support the tall grasses for grazing... oh well, doze another 1,000 acres... The reason that BK and others bought their meat from Amazon ranches?? It was significantly cheaper because of the economics of our currency vs. theirs (like the current Chinese trade arrangement).

All of the major resteraunt chains in the US have stopped buying from the Amazon ranchers after pressure from the real tree-huggers, but they are still selling this beef all over the World to areas less concerned with the ecological impact...

Speaking of China, they and India have had the most rapid increase in pollution and global impact due to their rapid push into the modern era.

As I said before, humans are pushing the time line of noticeable changes into decades, whereas the natural timeline has historically been multiple centuries to multiple millenia.

Yes Jay, 30 years we had serious air problems, but 100 years ago we did not...

We (humans, not just the U.S) have had an impact in the past half-century... I don't see how anyone can say otherwise...

50 years ago, hardly anyone had central air... more than one car... a home larger than 6 rooms... and most were heated by boilers & radiators and people actually shut off unused rooms (novel idea).

Today, most families in the US have larger homes, with single zone forced-air heating and cooling, multiple cars (and due to everyone driving SUVs, the fuel mileage averages aren't too much better than the sedans of the 60s and 70s)

Today, China and India are where we were 40-50 years ago from an industrial and civilization standpoint (because they are making the products for the World economy that we would have made 40-50 years ago, except x100 volume)...


Al Gore's utility companies (and many others) supply carbon neutral energy sourced from wind and solar at a higher rate, which is part of the reason why the cost is so high... He bought his way to carbon neutral without making many actual changes to his home. As for the car and jet, he is a former VP of the country with a security detail for the remainder of his life... Secret Service is not exactly going to sign off on flying coach on Southwest Airlines, and I doubt that you can get a Passat TDI or a Toyota Prius with executive armor and room for his Secret Service agent(s) and his family...

Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those who think that a pocketbook fix is the solution... Since Gore decided to take on this topic and really become the spokesman for the entire public awareness push, I would like to have seen him install systems like geothermal and solar before GWB did. Specifying a biodiesel powered SUV in place of the gasoline model would be a nice step as well...

EJ, I don't think that any tree huggers would consider me to be their peer...
I drive over 30K per year (primarily as the sole occupant), and I like the creature comforts like my air conditioning in the car and at home.

Then there is my appetite for audio/video... Given the preference, my appetites run toward massive class-A amplifiers and power-hungry front projectors... I can just see that meter spinning like crazy when I am in charge of the volume setting.

Just like yours, my quest to investigate alternative heating and cooling and biofuels comes from my being extremely cheap and feeling an intense level of disgust every time I send money to the utility companies. IMO, only "association" dues are a worse racket to extort money from homeowners. I don't plan to pay any of those either...

I am investigating a plan to build a home like this, [Link: enertia.com] , although I am still a few years away from starting that plan...

I want to be able to keep some of the money that the taxman lets me keep so that I can afford to buy rounds when I hang out with you guys.

I bought a 2.5L Camry that gets 30+ mpg, but even then my fuel expenses are over $300/mo. at current prices ($2.90+ on the last fill up)

I think it might be more accurate to say that there was a consensus that the evidence strongly suggested it, but some didn't feel that the proof was yet substantiative and wanted to see further studies before committing.

However just as the creationists have spun a fairy tail about how there are "serious scientists who promote creation science", even though in fact there are virtually no serious scientists who entertain creation science, those who have a vested interest in not seeing emissions regulated have spun a fairy tale that there is great disagreement in the scientific community regarding global warming when in fact there is not.

Of course we now know that we also have an administration that had actually been warning and pressuring government scientists not to mention global warming.

Actually I was surprised to see that a lot of the big-assed SUV's and Trucks can get about 20 mpg on the freeway... which isn't great, but not as bad as I thought.

The thing that concerns me is Chinas new thirst for fuel - due to their explosive growth in the use of cars over there...

The other factor is with the Oceans warming up and currents changing and all that crap, fish populations are dwindling.

Gas here this week is $3.15 a gallon - guess I'll be doing less jobsite visits.

I guess I'll buy stock in Sun Screen companies in the meantime.

Can I sell you a Jet Rack instead?

Albert Gores push for environmental discipline has its merits, but he is kind of pushing his own addenda. All the "real data" would say that what is happening would have happened anyway with or without our help, we only speeded things up a tiny bit. Great warming periods have always been followed by great cooling periods. Less than a thousand years ago Vikings lived and prospered on Greenland, they did really well for about 100 years during a very warm period, then boom the whole thing froze over almost overnight and they all died within the year.

Same thing happened a few hundred years ago killing millions via starvation, it was called the year without a summer, this was volcano related, which is really the whole point, 1 volcano can alter the environment in one year when it takes us decades to mess it up with our gas guzzlers. You gotta whatch a program called "Global dimming"

So you have to think what happened to the earth when there were hundreds of active volcanos? Volcanos dump a lot of the same crap into the air that we do only there is alot more particles there to block out the sunlight

I think the bigger concern is the toxic crap we pour into the ocean. Sea creatures will survive temperature changes, but they wont survive toxic chemicals, if they die we die

All developing lands will start with a dirty industrialized era just like the US did.

It will be very dirty.

But thanks to the lessons we learned burning up our pristine waterways many of them won't be nearly as bad.

Countries and towns will develop reguardless of us. In time our impact on the land will become less and less per person.

In time our natural reserves for oil and col etc. will dry up ending the environmental concerns for coal and oil based power plants.

|Obviously

If were fortunate we'll have a meteorite wipe a few of us out before your perfect world takes us at gunpoint you stupid lout. I'm glad to have you defending the free world!?!!

I don't side with any political party on environmental issues.

And here's another shout out to the sea creatures that create most of our oxygen.. Woooo.. woooo!. And I ain't sayin' to go blow up the rain forest or nothing.. I'm just saying some of y'all need to learn by reading and understanding. Not by listening and joining a "consensus" ... But I guess it's good to be popular.

Some guys don't give a shi* about the environment? Maybe they should be exposed to it some more.

Some guys get overworked? Maybe they should be exposed to the vastness.

Quote from my daughter:

Why are you worrying about global warming, you'll be dead before you see any major effects

Alas that truly is an inconvenient truth.

I was going to give a giant response to this...I figure this guy does a better job.

Take a few minits and edjumacate yourself

[Link: michaelcrichton.com]

That article by Michael Crichton uses incredibly fuzzy logic. I especially like where he shows pictures of horibbly starviung children and uses the totally bogus strawman argument:

"What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now?"

Uh, Michael, because if we keep poisoning the world a large part of it might be wiped out, that's why. As if the two are mutually exclusive! It's like people who say "why are we wasting all this money on saving whales when people are suffering". The answer is simple. There are all sorts of good things we can do in the world. The fact that cancer exists doesn't mean we can't also search for a cure for headaches.

Now IF we were spending billions on worrying about the future without giving any care to the present, his argument might hold water. Or if he wants to argue that we are prioritizing our funds incorrectly (which he is), that argument can hold water. But as it is his entire article if weak.

Modern science indicates they used too much flatulence.

BTW Q, if algore is making his fortune pushing global warming, wouldn't that make you a little suspicious? Never mind, that was a bad question to ask. Watch out for the kool-aid. And there are enough young earth scientists out there to keep you busy reading for quite awhile. Trouble with us humans is we come to the conclusion first, then agree with our scientists and discredit theirs. When I say "us humans" I include myself. You will find areas where I won't agree with you or your evidence. Maybe I like my evidence better? That's how we all work.

The consensus is when you have a premise going in and you make your conference revolve around that. Dissenting voices are not counted and the consensus is recorded. Such it is in global warming. It's too profitable not to promote. Follow the money trail.

It is really a pity that Al Gore decided to make that movie. It has given all those that that do not accept global warming evidence a convenient target, and an opportunity to deflect the argument and start talking about politics and egos instead.

Edit...

Gore does not define the global warming debate any more than that butt head disgraced minister Haggard defines religiosity. Devoutly religious people are not more right or wrong because of that idiot's actions. The same goes for Al Gore living in an energy-inefficient house and burning tons of jet fuel to go see his celebrity buddies. Doesn't matter. The global warming debate should not be and is not about politics and belief, it is about provable and repeatably verifiable facts.

|

[Link: ninjamafia.com]