|
RE: Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on March 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
jared, read all, but if u r busy, start page 13
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf
Z
|
| |
|
RE: Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Al Gore's credibility aside can any of you honestly say that you think we should not pay attention to emissions, strive for cleaner, more sustaining energy sources and overall cut down on CO2 out put? It seems like a few of you are completely against the idea or just hate Al Gore with a passion.
Global warming is an issue with so many variables. The critics of Gore say that the world goes threw these climate shifts naturally and has for the earth's entire life cycle. I agree. The amount of Co2 that got pumped out into the air from super volcanoes probably out ways anything we have done. However, these events do have a wide global effect and do effect the climate. Though a volcano is natural, cars are not. And whats going to happen if we get another catastrophic world wide volcanic out break combined with the Co2 already getting pumped out into the air by us? What about the crappy air quality C02 creates in major metropolitan areas? What about the fact that our worlds natural filtration system i.e the forest are going by by at an alarming rate that the world has ever seen?
I too am skeptical of some of the stuff gore says. His whole inconvenient truth movie was kind of far fetched. To presume that the world is going to be a melting pot in 50 years is pretty ludicrous. however one can hardly argue that there are issues that need to be resolved.
Again, I am not supporting Gore and I am not claiming to have all of the facts. I didnt even read the article. I do however find it very odd that people here seem so against the idea of needing to regulate the crap we spew into the air or so it would seem. Sure money should be put into protecting our natural resources more but this is another issue, amungst many that people need to address. There are other factors that come into play aside from Gore's scare tactics and its not wise to follow the other end of the spectrum, ignore the problem and hope everything works out for the best.
BTW, I personally feel the only thing we can do to minimize the worlds downfall is population control and stopping development of everything. I wish like hell that developers would be completely barred from investing in and backing politicians. That way there wouldn't be the incentive to allow developers to do what they please.
Anyway, I guess I should have read the article more and got my facts together before posting. I apologize ahead of time if this was simply an "I hate Gore" thread a jumped to conclusions. However, I hate Gore usually means taht people think doing anything about emissions is stupid and I just cant see how anyone could have that mindset.
|
| |
|
AAARRRGGGH!!!!!
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's momentarily forget global climate change. It is real; it's not a mass conspiracy brought on by right wing extremists designed to separate you from your pythons and SUVs. But let's ASSume that it is a fraud. What fault can you find in limiting emissions of CO2?When you limit CO2 you also limit, by virtue of limiting combustion, a range of known pollutants (including SOx, NOx, O3, Dioxins, Furans, PANs)many of which are carcinogenic.
Don't get me started, I can go ALL day (actually that's what I do for a living). Save the planet. The Herps will be happier.
|
| |
|
RE: AAARRRGGGH!!!!!
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very well said Earthguy. I agree 100 percent. Weather the problem is as bad as Gore leads people to believe or not the fact remains that there is a problem. Most academics seem to be in agreement over this and it is painfully obvious that the environment is getting shafted at an unheard of rate. Disliking a politician is hardly an excuse to ignore the issue itself.
|
| |
|
RE: AAARRRGGGH!!!!!
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just to be clear, I didn't say that I don't believe in global warming. I am, however, skeptical of the predictions of doom, not only because we are not yet able to predict the climate with any certainty a WEEK in advance, but becuase I see very obvious things being ignored and DESTRUCTIVE fixes being suggested in the name of "we have to do SOMETHING" and often for purely political reasons.
First we added catalytic converters to our cars. I don't know enough about the subject to say whether this really was a net improvement but it's easy enough to see that they remove oxygen and ADD carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for purposes of improving "air quality" within densely populated cities.
We're already seeing serious economic problems in parts of the world due to the rush to produce ethanol fuels without thinking about whether it was a reasonable, long term solution. I'm sure I can't be the only one who worked through the numbers and found that to replace JUST gasoline, JUST in the US would take TWICE THE CURRECT GLOBAL CORN CROP, with no fuel or corn left for anyone else. Not only that, but we would still be burning hydrocarbons. Not as bad a gas, but not a lot better.
Earthguy, you are correct that actually reducing emissions would reduce other pollutants also. that's one reason carbon credits are such a sham. Let's see, my company/country can continue manufacturing if we pay to have trees planted? (I'm aware that that's just one scheme) ...which will TEMPORARILY remove some carbon from the atmosphere (until they burn or decay) and do almost nothing about other pollutants. But hey, we did SOMETHING, right?
Not only that, but Kyoto gives at least one large country artificial credit for reducing emmission that actually happened long BEFORE the treaty was signed, due to economic collapse. So they get to sell credits that allow other countries to increase emmission while they increase their own, right up to the limit allowed by the treaty...at which point they will simply withdraw rather than slow their economy. A treaty is a piece of paper that a country honors as long as it is in it's best interest. No one is going to invade or stop doing business with them because they withdraw from, or simply ignore an emissions treaty.
But Bush is an evil feind for not signing onto such nonsense. And no one remembers that Clinton knew better when he was in charge...
|
| |
|
RE: AAARRRGGGH!!!!!
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very well stated Larry !
Everyone should be awair of enviornmental problems, and conservation, and do what they can to help out.
However, following like sheep behind zelots like algore or sting will not solve the problem.
We should support folks trying to save rain forests. We should put trade sanctions on countries like China who are producing millions of cars and cycles with no pollution controls at all. And we should withdraw from the United Nations.
Right now, being a "greenie" is more of a temperary fashion statement, (although on St. Patrics Day, it is appropriate), however the greenies are doing a lot of bad things like inventing carbon credits.
Another example of bad "green" policy is the attempt to outlaw incandesent light bulbs and replace them with floresent bulbs. Sure, it looks good on paper, because incandesent bulbs burn more electrical energy and give off heat (which could be good in winter months), however, what the greenies fail to mention is that the cheap compact floresent bulbs that are being imported by the tens of millions from China contain Mercury ! So, when a bulb burns out, it winds up in one of our landfills, and releases the Mercury into OUR enviornment. Not into China`s enviornment, OUR enviornment.
Do what you can to try to help conserve and not pollute. I have been an enviornmentalist since way before the first Earth Day in 1970. I do many things to help conservation, however I do not blindly follow the latest "cults."
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: AAARRRGGGH!!!!!
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ethonal is a load of crap. The environmental implications are probably worse then that with oil. When you take into account the amount of damage done to the environment by growing the corn alone (pesticides, deforestation etc) and then look at the emissions, well, definately not any better then oil IMO and not the way to go. There are other technologies out there which have alot of promise. hopefully they will get the funding needed to push it.
As for global warming, it honestly is having a huge impact on the earth as was said. Will it be as severe as some say? Probably not. Will it be bad and is it bad now? Yes yes yes!
Something needs to be done and people need to start thinking about the big picture. That includes both sides. To completely deny the facts based on a personal beef with a politician who supports it isnt wise. To completely believe what a politician says inst wise either. It is a hard spot to be in.
Personally I am just thankful more and more people seem to be concerned about the future of the environment. Now if we could all stop belly aching over whos right and whos wrong and come up with a proper strategy to counter act the problem then we will be well on our way to fixing this and other messes.
|
| |
|
RE: AAARRRGGGH!!!!!
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Another example of bad "green" policy is the attempt to outlaw incandesent light bulbs and replace them with floresent bulbs. Sure, it looks good on paper, because incandesent bulbs burn more electrical energy and give off heat (which could be good in winter months), however, what the greenies fail to mention is that the cheap compact floresent bulbs that are being imported by the tens of millions from China contain Mercury ! So, when a bulb burns out, it winds up in one of our landfills, and releases the Mercury into OUR enviornment. Not into China`s enviornment, OUR enviornment."
Instead of bad mouthing the "greenies" the other side should be coming up with better ways of achieving the goal. instead they invest all of their time and money into complaining about how bad the greenies are.
I have a feeling that when you say greenies you actually mean to say a word starting with a D. If I am correct Lets please leave politics out of this board as its not going to do anything but piss people off.
Bottom line, both sides suck, the environment is being obliterated and humanity as a whole had better wake up and start doing something about it. Getting everybody to realize there is a problem is the first step in the right direction. If you deny there is a problem then you must have been living in a box for the past 30 years. (not saying that to anyone here, just in general)
|
| |
|
RE: AAARRRGGGH!!!!!
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, CFLs do contain mercury. But there can be a net lessining of mercury in the environment with the widespredd use of CFLs. How? Electricity in my state is made primarily with coal. Burning coal releases dimethylmercury, which is incredibly bioavailable. We need light, but where would you rather have the mercury? In a Hazardous TSD facility or bioavailable in our fish and amphibians? Tough choice, I know, but here in SC we have NO waters without mercury warnings for the fish.
Long story short - environment is a complex and touchy subject. However, if we all do a little, it will help a lot. I'll get off my soap box now (and maybe save a little electricity) if you will promise to stop bashing the 'D@mn Treehuggers' :)
Peace
|
| |
|
RE: AAARRRGGGH!!!!!
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on March 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Earthguy, We will not stop bashing three huggers but we will give you a special AZA type exemption from being our target ;-)
Z
PS: so what is worse cars that run on regular fuel or electric cars, considering electricity is produced with coal?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
