John Stossel: Global warming "may be a good thing"
On the February 23 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, John Stossel claimed that "you can't deny that the globe has warmed" but added that global warming "may be a good thing." Stossel, who is co-anchor of ABC's 20/20, then asked: "And is it a catastrophe, where we have to wreck the lives of poor people and turn our freedom over to [former Vice President] Al Gore and he'll tell us what we can drive and whether we can air-condition our house? And even if he does that, it's not going to make any difference."
From the February 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
GLENN BECK (host): Tell me about global warming. I'm fascinated, John, by the fact that you cannot have a differing opinion in this country now -- and really, planetwide, almost -- and not be called a fascist. RFK Junior called me a fascist for questioning global warming. What kind of society are we living in?
STOSSEL: Well, he's an imbecile in many ways, and we have him on TV tonight on another subject. But, you know, I guess you can't deny that the globe has warmed. Climate changes. It's warmed a little. The issue is, is it a bad thing? It may be a good thing. And is it a catastrophe, where we have to wreck the lives of poor people and turn our freedom over to Al Gore and he'll tell us what we can drive and whether we can air-condition our house? And even if he does that, it's not going to make any difference. So there are seven issues, and the only one where there's clear truth is that, yes, the globe has warmed and probably will keep warming. And, most likely, man is playing a part. But to then say, "Al Gore is right," what does that mean? What are we going to do?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Now of course he will appear on Scarborough Country and claim that Media Matters smears him. I guess in Stossels mind the famine in Africa is a good thing also.
He was also the one who said that price gouging in New Orleans saved the resources for "the most deserving" And what does he mean we can't change anything? When there is cause and effect stop the cause.
it's the new right wing talking points. they don't deny it now, as stossel did before, but the tune has changed. it's a - just say nothing can be done, or b - it's a good thing. it's sort of like the neocons on iraq. they've been wrong on virtually everything, but they're still to be listened to before the people that predicted what a disaster it would be.
Stossel's comments on the merits of price gouging during Katrina mark him as a moron of special note. One could only wish that Stossel would have been able to test his theory that desperately thirsty people would not have bashed his head in with a rock to get his water after he attempted to charge them $100. a bottle while their family members were dying of thirst outside.
" I guess in Stossels mind the famine in Africa is a good thing also. "
That's a good point you bring up. What about those dying children in Africa? We have the oscar ceremony where so many left leaning political and popular performers were greatly touting the dangers of global warming and how if something isn't done soon all chaos will break loose..... Did you hear ONE word about the millions of children that are predicted to die in Africa for lack of nutrition? Neither did I !!
Sure I can understand the lefties worry about global warming killing future generations (5 or more in the future), but I cannot understand the lefties lack of compassion for the starving children in underdeveloped nations NOW. It seems the only groups you actually hear who are helping the poor are religious groups (and only one that I know of that isn't religious). So, while the left's priorities are to kick religion out of the states, religions priorities are save the children because no one else wants to. Or, another lefty priority is to bring to the forefront the dangers of global warming (that may be occuring naturally anyway and we don't face any immediate dangers from) while virtually ignoring dangerous conditions that are present now and affecting lives currently.
You tell me...where are your priorities?! Are they with a natural event that may not happen for hundreds/thousands of years or are they with deadly conditions that are happening now?! From reading some of the reactions on this thread, I'd say there with global warming....that figures.
"Did you hear ONE word about the millions of children that are predicted to die in Africa for lack of nutrition? Neither did I !!" --proudchristian
That is because there was a significant movie on the subject of Global Warming this year. If a movie about famine in Africa becomes nominated, I would expect them to talk about that issue during the awards.
"I cannot understand the lefties lack of compassion for the starving children in underdeveloped nations NOW." --proudchristian
Mindreading drivel.
notice this through-the-looking-glass nonsense these trolls are adopting. it use to be: you bleeding heart liberals think you can save the world. now it's: you guys don't care about [insert group here].
You didn't happen to notice that one of the top movies was about how the diamond trade exploits Africans?
Indeed. Or another movie about Idi Amin. Or an Oscar-winner last year about poverty in Kenya.
I think P.C. is more motivated by knee-jerk hatred of Al Gore than by any rational point.
I can't lose.
My house is about a mile from the bay and five miles from the ocean.
Bay front or ocean front, it doesn't matter to me, it'll be a good thing.
Uh, have you done the price analysis on "submerged?"
Hey, experts! How long will it take for global warming to submerge a house 10ft tall built on land at sea level?? Come on all you fear mongers, give us the FACTS!! How long?!?
What would that prove? I suppose a 10 foot tall building is just fine with even 1 inch of water covering the floor?
Yeah, that's what I thought. You lefties are whining about something that won't even affect us for a thousand years and you are ignoring plights that affect lives now.
So are you. You're just ignoring both plights. Unless you're over in Africa feeding starving children, in which case I apologize.
" Unless you're over in Africa feeding starving children, in which case I apologize. "
Actually, I do fund a child over in Africa. Her name is Annie and she is Muslim who lives in the Congo. I am going through World Vision. Thanks for asking. How many of you are funding any children endangered by global warming, since that is the movie of the year plight? Which plight will it be next year? You liberals sure forget fast about plights. Each year you have a different concern, as if each one is "fixed" once you highlight it through a movie.
Anybody can send money. Rusty asked if you were "over in Africa". That is real commitment. I take it that is a "no" then. Funny how you can seemingly accept half-measures for yourself, but with liberals it is all or nothing?
Dear lord, this is the craziest criticism ever. You're complaining that when "lefties" talk about global warming they don't always mention every other ill in the world? Yes, there are many terrible things happening in the world--starving children in African, genocide in Darfur, war in the Middle East (and Africa, and Asia...), AIDS, malaria, repressive governments, and on and on--but does that mean the very real problems related to global warming should be ignored? I thought the problem with "lefties" was the tendency to always bring up the "laundry list" of causes, now we're getting it for not doing so?
As for your notion that it "won't even affect us for a thousand years," perhaps you should do a little reading up so you understand the claims and concerns of those who are concerned about global warming. If you're going to attack something, it's only sensible to address the actual substance rather than a goofy straw man of your own devising.
Strawman? Gore could have come straight from the wizard of oz movie set. Tell me, expert, how long before melting ice caps flood the world and/or change the environment dangerously?
So you are not concerned for your progeny? What if it is 100 years, a thousand? Why do you seemingly hate those people so much? Or are you just simply indifferent to their future plight? Or do you think the Rapture is coming, so it is all moot anyway?
Hmm...our progeny...
Wonder which will be a bigger surprise to 'em--icebergs in Miami or a Social Security Trust Fund wit' nuttin' in it, after being promised the moon.
Would concern about both be warranted? Should we even tell 'em? Naw, it'll make us look stupid.
Not quite sure what Global Warming has to do with SS. A bit off-topic.
Like Global Warming, if they are going to genuinely start to fix SS, they had better do something sooner than later if they want to keep it for future generations.
How's this for ignoring the plight of our children.
Please read my plea to Proud Christian in this thread and then read his response.
[link to mediamatters.org]
Typical of you to miss the point. WORLD WIDE problem! what part of that do you not get? YOU only care about kids who have life long health insurance provided to them...legal AND illegal. Why don't you say something about kids in areas that DON'T have medical care available to them. Open up that closed mind and look at reality. Again, you just want the government to give more of what they already have. I'm suggesting giving to those who have not.
PC (can I call you PC?)...you did very well on this exchange, and you reminded me I need to go ahead on plans to participate in World Vision or Christian Children's Fund.
Thank you.
Let's play spot the strawman argument:
"YOU only care about kids who have life long health insurance provided to them...legal AND illegal." --PC
When did WK say anything like this? Another ridiculous conservative attempt at mind-reading/strawma. No wonder Lemoc has a crush on you.
PC made you look cheap and impertinent (face it), and made me feel guilty about my procrastination re: supporting one or more of those kids.
Darn, with just a little more guilt, I could become a Liberal. Been hangin' out here too long ( don't agree with me).
I don't think you will ever have to worry about being mistaken for a liberal.
What to watch out for: You will know you are becoming more liberal when your previously evidenced incredible mindreading abilities start to fade and you start to rely more heavily on facts and reasoning to make your judgements.
Like I said, I don't think you have much to worry about.
;^)
So you are arguing sea level will take 1000 years to rise 1 inch?
Of course! Because we all know it is impossible to be concerned about both global warming and third world poverty. Just ask Bono...
well it's impossible for guys like pchristian to handle two things at once. the old walk and chew gum scenario.
I hope you realize that's an improbable scenario... For the ocean to rise 10 feet (*if* that could even happen) the environment would be so catastrophically damaged that human live wouldn't be sustainable. Take your idiotic arguments elsewhere.
And...
John's house has taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance.
Why is this man still on TV?
And I am really getting tired of hearing the throw-you-arms-up-in-the-air and say screw it attitude that guys like Stossel put out there.
This IS America. We won two world wars, put a man on the moon, started up the Internet, and changed the idea of governance back in 1776.
Climate Change....we can take it!
Instead we are still arguing over "who's right?"
It's patriotic to stand up and say what America needs to fix.
It's un-patriotic to say America can't.
The MSM still has a place for hatemongers.
my question is...could his moustach beat-up Gerraldo's? Now that would be worth watching!!
I like it.
New mini-miniseries.
I guess 22 years ago when David "Dr. D" Schultz bitch-slapped Stossel he really did scramble his brains...
Dr. D, where are you now when we need you?
And as a big opponent of frivolous lawsuits he accepted a $400.000 settlement even though he got up and walked away.
What an enormous tool.
He also said gouging is good, after Katrina.
David Schultz hit him a little too hard, and he hasn't learned a thing.
"The gummit's gonna tell you what you can drive!!!" This is one of the stupidest things I hear conservatives bitch about, for the following reason: the government already tells you what you can drive. Wanna drive a new car that doesn't have seat belts? How about one that doesn't pass crash test standards? Fact is, your modern car - which is a marvel of engineering, and vastly better than the cars of just twenty years ago - is practically designed by the government.
Hell, I'd like to drive an Abrams tank down the street, and "the government" won't let me, but you don't hear me whining like a little Beck.
What
IS your limit, then?
In Cuba, Papa says to drive only nostalgia cars.
Papa? You mean Hemingway?
No, it's Bush that is blockading the island... I'm sure they'd love to get some newer cars in Havana.
They will get some, soon.
I was asking Rusty just what his limit would BE on what Uncle would let him motate in.
What do you mean, my "limit"?
Limit, meaning...
will you comply with ANY edict from Uncle re: what you may use for transportation (how much energy you may consume), or do you/I/anybody have a limit to being dictated to?
Because SOME (were they in power) would have you travel under your own power, everywhere.
RFK jr is an imbecile?? That from an imbecile to major imbecile. Painful irony.
Not to mention, we've all seen enough of Beck's method of 'questioning' ... smirky arrogance all around, no logic, no facts... just dumbguy reasoning. These guys are pathetic.
You see? It's all 'bout that badman Gore telling what we can and cannot do! And, he's going to ruin the lives of poor people too! Oohhhh. Whoa-is-me.
It's about personal responsibility... truly a tenet of the 'old' conservative. Personal responsibility extends to other facets of life other than just makin' green. It should also extend to ... well, being 'green' perhaps. Cutting back on gas-guzzling SUVs and our dependence on fossil fuels can do nothing but help our over-populated planet. But, that's just me.
"But to then say, "Al Gore is right," what does that mean? What are we going to do?"
Choke on your word, no doubt. Cuz, apparently, that's one of the worst things ever!! Baby-idiots.
kinda strange response, but now the right has all the angles covered. No winning there. Either Gore is wrong and is fearmongering to cheat them out of their hard stolen money, or he's right but it's too late so it is a waste of time cheating them out of their hard stolen money. Conundrums...
Hard-stolen money.
Whatcha talkin' 'bout?
I believe it is a reference to an old Mort Sahl joke:
"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen."
you got it!
I loved Mort. He was my favorite Liberal.
Is he still around (easy to Google, just wondering)?
Yup, still around. He'll be 80 this year.
You mean like all the super stretch and gas guzzling SUV limos that carted around all the Hollywood celebs who cheered for Gore's win at yesterday's Oscars? Let the "little people" go hybrid, can you imagine driving up to the red carpet in a Prius four door? NEVER!
Leonardo DiCaprio drives a Prius. They are quite popular in Hollywood.
Real nice Rusty...
Why did you have to ruin the Hollywood SUV driving stero-type with an actual example? I mean how is Tommy going to smear ALL of ultra-LIBERAL Hollywood when your providing actual examples of what some of the stars drive for the other 364 days out of the year?
Darnit, you caught me - I was out to smear all of ULTRA liberal Hollywood.....nice catch.
If it wasn't so true, I would think you were being sarcastic.
And, it's not really a stereotype... There are, of course, folks who give a damn. And, there are a lot of folks in the city (as a whole who don't. I've lived in LA for 6 years now and, yes, there is an element of hypocrisy when it comes to the car thing. And, that extends to other issues... My favorite was the wilted, battered, dirty American flags that were hanging off of every Mercedes' antenna in the months following 9/11. People couldn't even bring themselves to change the damn flag! Or, just take it down. It was absurd.
There are a lot of good folks here...but a lot of selfish/self-centered people as well. But, I guess a pop of 10,000,000...you're gonna find that.
"Leonardo DiCaprio drives a Prius." - Rusty Shackleford
You mean when he's not on global jaunts on private jets? And how would you know what he drives? That's seems just a little....well,... odd...
Please provide legitimate links to backup your allegations against Leonardo.
Thanks.
It seems odd why? Because it doesnt conform to the stereotype you prefer, no matter what the reality is? He drives a Prius and is an outspoken proponent of Hybrids, get over it.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/12/20/cx_dl_1221featslide_10.html
Leonardo DiCaprio: Toyota Prius
Base price: $22,305
One of the most visible advocates of hybrids, Leonardo DiCaprio has been seen driving a Toyota Prius, just like Julia Roberts
Uh, no Solon. It seems odd that anyone would know OR EVEN CARE what kind of car DiCaprio drives when he's out for a photo op. This "Star Worshipping" has gone way too far.
You and your fellow righties certainly seem to care what the stars are driving. Perhaps you should direct your outrage at Tommy.
No outrage here, Rusty. People are free to drive/fly whatever they wish. It's just a little sickening to read some of the posts from folks here worshipping the "Stars" because they drive a hybrid while they heat/cool their multiple mansions around the world and fly to and from them in their private jets. I really couldn't care less. More power to the "Hollywood types". It's just hypocritical of them, that's all.
"It's just a little sickening to read some of the posts from folks here worshipping the "Stars" because they drive a hybrid while they heat/cool their multiple mansions around the world and fly to and from them in their private jets. I really couldn't care less."
Who is "worshipping the 'Stars'" here? The only question is whether your post is mostly mind-reading or a strawman. I can't decide.
I didnt know. I googled. People WOULD know however because he is an outspoken ADVOCATE of hybrids. DUH.
Bill Mahr also drives a Hybrid. I know this because he has stated so many times on his show(s). Oh wait, he's probably lying...good thing I'm also stalking him... ;-)
Maher IS a hybrid.
And the rest of 'em can do what we hire them to do (entertain us), and then just shut the @#$% up.
That ain't gonna happen, so I guess we'll just include what they say and do as part of their entertainment offering. Hope they get all the applause they deserve.
He drives a Prius to assuage his guilt after flying in his GV burning more fuel in one trip than 500 SUV's could burn in 5 yrs.
Great mind-reading. You conservatives do that so well. It seems to be a necessary part of nearly every argument you make. I guess facts are too solid a thing to base arguments on.
Hogprint, Lemoc, et al. seem to really hate the "Hollywood types." My guess is it's because the Hollywood types are so much more attractive, talented, successful, and rich than they'll ever be.
I don't think anyone "hates" the "Hollywood types". It's just that some of us see through all of the phonyness and aren't prone to genuflect at the knees as their shadow passes by on the Red Carpet.
These "Stars", as you call them, are nothing more than self-absorbed, narcissistic, mostly drug/alchohol-dependent losers... - Clsn
Yep - no hate there. Although to give you the benefit of the doubt, it might just be extreme jealousy.
Right, Rusty. I'm jealous of a lifestyle where you live in a cesspool of other drug/alcohol-addicted losers who spend every waking moment (between binges) plotting and scheming with their "agents" to get the next "big role" in another movie that degrades America. The whole Hollywood garbage dump is disgusting. Why anyone pays attention to these degenerates is beyond me. Maybe you just lead a very empty life, Rusty.
CLSN - this is why you will continue to lose argument after argument and why you continue to look more foolish with each post.
Why do you continue to make generalizations about what all of Hollywood is or does?
He learned from all you generalizers here. Do you read any of these posts? See any generalizations here?
I'm jealous of a lifestyle where you live in a cesspool of other drug/alcohol-addicted losers who spend every waking moment (between binges) plotting and scheming with their "agents" to get the next "big role" in another movie that degrades America. The whole Hollywood garbage dump is disgusting. Why anyone pays attention to these degenerates is beyond me.
So much hate. Sad. :^(
why do you "write" everything in "quotations"?
Because I "feel" like it. If it bothers you that much, just take them out as you read.
I guess conservatives are all a bunch of Holden Caulfields at heart. Exposing all of those Hollywood phonies.
Ed Begley Jr as well
Yeah and Begley's home runs entirely on solar power which is nifty neat IF you have an extra $15,000-$30,000 to spend on installing it. Most ordinary folks don't.
But at least this guy isn't one of those Do As I Say, Not As I Do types that we usually get preached at by.
Where are you getting your numbers? I live in what could be one of the foggiest cities in the country --San Francisco. I have a 2 bedroom 2 bath house --about 1500 square feet. I put in solar about 3 years ago and my out of pocket costs were $7000.00. Thats before all the new tax breaks and rebates (it would cost less now)
The amazing thing is that my electric bill is ZERO and I have electric heating and just installed and electric water heater. If I can do this for 7K in one of the least sunny locations in the country (which means that I needed more panels then lets say somewhere in Missouri or Indiana) then WHY isn't the whole country doing it? I will break even after only 7 years. The panels already have added 15% to the appraised value of my house.
Check your numbers..its MUCH cheaper than you think and getting cheaper.
I'd rather give my energy dollars to an american firm that makes solar panels than some mideast undemocratic kingdom.
John Stossell and Glen Beck are anti-american when they want us to stay the course and keep letting our energy dollars leave the USA.
"I will break even after only 7 years"
You just answered why most conservatives won't buy into it. They aren't patient enough to wait that long for a return on their profits. I work for a pretty large company, our project guidance goal is if it can't break even in one year it isn't done. We are just now getting into using NPV which takes us out to a 3 year payback. 7? You have to prove to them beyond a shadow of a doubt that the panels will be working and providing the same level of service that far down the road, and even if you do you will still bump up against the ol' knee jerk reaction of waiting for a return.
One would think conservatives would be smart enough to look at the long term financial benefits..but I hear you. Companies looking at a 1-3 year profit line will end up paying more over time and hopefully go under. Companies that look farther out 5-10 or even 15 years out will end up profiting more and hopefully being better citizens too. Just shows why regulations are absolutely necessary. Companies will never do anything voluntarily. From seat belts to airbags to sick leave..they had to be forced by regulations. Lets force every building owner to either put in just 1 panel or pay into a fund that helps subsidize the cost of those panels...Putting the Saudi Kingdom's oil company out of business would make the USA so much more secure than anything we are doing now.
niceguy, nice...uh, posts. the same thing applied to the auto companies when carter and the democratic congress ordered them to increase mileage standards. they cried we can't do it on time, it's too expensive. presented with no option, they did it on time and for far less than they claimed it would cost. and your point about starving unfriendly regimes of our oil money is right on the mark, something i have said before. jimmy carter called energy independence a security issue of great importance to this country. we have done nothing but go the wrong way in the years since.
You guys are in over your head, and making yourselves look ridiculous. " Business never does ANYTHING voluntarily". "Business only thinks about short-term profit". Grow up.
Depreciation on industrial equipment is typically seven years or longer. Financing on same commonly is pegged to the depreciation schedule. Most business has to be looking 10, 15, and 20 or more years down the road to justify the risk and investment. If, in your experience, you see shorter time frames and/or higher rates of return called for, it's the nature of THAT enterprise or industry, or it's a special situation carrying a higher rate of risk.
If you are running a business, one of your daily tasks is seeing to it that you are "regulated" (some sensible, some not) out of existence. Hence the seating of industry and labor people on safety boards, for example, to get common sense into regulation, instead of embracing each new bureaucratic edict like it's manna from heaven.
I have yet to work for a business that depreciates over 7 years. And I am a big follower of the Rush Limbaugh method of "proof" - I have yet to work for a liberal!
left out the <snark!>
Check with your CPA, don't take my word for it.
Here's one for ya---rental property is depreciated over 29 years. You don't believe that, either.
If you don't want to believe it, it can't be true. Good luck if you ever hit the real world.
OK, I won't argue with you about semantics, you can find evidence of what you state. But real estate? c'mon, not a good example of the mainstream. America has an economy that has transformed into services, service economy can't have a long economic outlook because population is in constant motion. Electronics? Computers? Software? My trash 80 is still functioning - NOT! Maybe you are suggesting that the heads of these organizations are looking farther into the future than I give them credit for. I would argue that their forsight is less, it is based on a predertimed lifespan to ensure you will always upgrade if you think the service they provide has merit to you. And then there is always advertising to help convince you of what your "necessities" are.
The topic is not the life of products (you're getting this mixed up). The topic is business planning, what it takes to survive, and what you will present to your bankers for a viable, long-term strategy of success.
If you're making the point that some equipment has a shorter life, yes--some has 3-yr. life for depreciation purposes, some has 5, etc. etc. Some you may decide to expense (one year may be allowed by the tax man), or if you have enough expense already in that year, you may choose to capitalize it (depreciate over a longer "life").
"The topic is business planning..."--lemoc
Umm.. Actually the topic was John Stossel and his current round of idiocy before you apparently hijacked the thread.
And all my projects have to have CPA approval, BTW. Requirement of the industry I support.
that was real smart of the car companies to go for the short term profits of the gas guzzlers. and when the day came, and oil shot up, the foreign car companies ate their lunch.
Yes rental properties do depreciate for 29 years and much equipment does depreciate over 7 years. However I've see a lot of apartments and rental property managers who ONLY do something when forced to by laws or regulations. SURE regulations increase costs in the short run for a specific business or company..but they tend to lower costs for society in general and thats what conservatives hate..why should they pay a few cents or a few dollars or even a few thousand dollars more.
I'll tell you why..because everyone of us is a member of society. Whether a conservative admits it or not, they enjoy the benefits of living in a society with other people (paved roads, airports, running water, schools, parks, hiking trails, highways, etc) Along with those benefits come some responsibility to pay your share, and not hurt others. Thats what they hate..they want all the benefits but want to pick and choose which responsibilities to take.
they hate taxes and regulations because they force people to share responsibility towards each other and the environment when they want to pick and choose or just get a free ride.
Conservatives scream responsibility..they just don't want to take any responsibility themselves
Feel fortunate that somebody is trying to keep YOUR tax load from becoming more than you can bear. Credit is due to people in both parties.
Yes, I said YOUR tax load. If you are naiive enough (your generalizations remind me of my 5 year-old) to think that your neighbor's taxes are not YOURS, then you are beyond help.
OH my goodness you are so right. Thank goodness we have people trying to keep all their money for themselves and not contribute to the common good. Thats right same thing..scream out about responsibility but when it comes down to it..it boils down to pure short sighted selfishness.
I think we don't pay enough taxes in this country. Our roads are shot, our healthcare system leaves us living less and having a higher infant mortality that most western countries, our ability to compete technologically is threatened because we are not funding education to the extent necessary..and alll the poor conservatives can do is scream--not with my money.
Well when the next bird flu epidemic hits and you find yourself without a hospital bed or a government that can help..what will all that money you saved do for you then?
Let's start with YOUR pocketbook.
Empty it and send it to Uncle. You're apparently eating enough and have a roof over your head. Many are not as fortunate.
Send in your excess.
Priuses are popular in Hollywood to park in the driveway, or for a photo-op (think I saw one parked under the clothesline out @ Babs' place at Malibu. You know, out by the 12,000 sq. ft. heated barn).
Spare us the mindreading.
You were thinking the same thing, weren't you? I knew it.
I guess you aren't as good at mindreading as I thought. Good mindreaders don't need to ask me what I think.
My gracious, this is a dumb argument. Beyonce showed up in a stretch, so there is no warming?
And, you are correct. It's irrelevant. Only until someone figures out how to replace fossil fuel paychecks with 'bio diesel' or some other alternative fuel income... income ... the capitalists will continue to fight this until it's curtains. I guess that's the American Way... money over all else.
Actually, last year's Oscars showed the likes of Harrison Ford and others arriving in Prius (Prii?)... But, that's when they were new and 'fun' or whatever. But, you are correct on that score.
There is an element of Hypocrisy. I live and work - drive through Beverly Hills - every day. There is no shortage of ridiculous SUVs here in this so-called bastion of liberal politics that is LA. Absurd, in fact.
Thanks Greek, I live in LA too - and the stretch limos were lined up for blocks by the Kodak yesterday. I even know one celebrity who stayed at the Renaissance Hotel adjacent to Hollywood/Highlands and the Kodak who was limo-ed a half a block..........now that is all fine and their business, to be sure. But don't go acting all planetary consious and global warming concerned when your hypocrisy is for all to see.
It is true. I drive a small compact (Honda) to and fro. It's not a hybrid...but, reasonable considering what I need it for... That is, transpo to and from work that is fairly fuel-efficient. Every day, I see lines of huge trucks, SUVs lined up in traffic...one person at the helm... and for what? It's a waste and a ridiculous show of opulence, in my mind. But, then you get into that whole issue about who is to tell someone what they can/cannot drive, etc...
But, I do stand by the 'personal responsibility' thing... extending to more than just the singular. Easier said than done.
I am absolutely not for telling anyone what to drive, it is perfectly their business. It's the hypocrisy of it that's eye-opening. If you preach global warming and the detremint that gas guzzlers have on our environment, and drive a huge one yourself - you're a hypocrit.
It's partly where the term "limousine liberals" comes from.......and for some it is very appropriate.
Al Gore drives an SUV?
News to me.
I don't believe I said Al Gore drives anything?
So the people who arrived in limos and clapped when Gore won the Oscar are hypocrites? They may have just been being polite. I think Tom Cruise got applause as well, but most of the people in that room probably think Scientology is crazy.
I said those that cheered for Gore's win, implying those that are fully on board with his movie and the global warming/climate crisis, yet arrived in vehicles at odds with that crisis. Those that clapped for his win may certainly have been polite in their applause.
Hmmm... yes... the existence of that couple dozen hypocrites (assuming they actually did all arrive in limos) is definitely "eye-opening."
Some would even say it's jaw-dropping.
Man your comments are such a joke...
All you've done is make a number of generaliztions. Yes ALL OF LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD DRIVES LIMOS AND SUVS - Every last one of them.
If you drive a Hybrid for 364 days out of the year and then come to the Oscar's in a limo your a hypocrit? I'm looking forward to seeing you hold everyone (including yourself) to this same high level.
Did you think there might be a reason why a star might come in a limo or SUV to a very public event?
Calm down, alla ya!!!
The answer is obvious--stretch Priuses.
Yes, enlightened one - please tell us why a star would come to a very public event in a limo. I have no idea why, and that's no joke!
because you are being obtuse and refusing to look up any facts;
DiCaprio, nominated for a best-actor Oscar for his role in the drama "Blood Diamond," was among several celebs who arrived in a low-emission vehicles. Other stars taking part in Global Green's fifth annual "Red Carpet-Green Cars" campaign included Penelope Cruz, Forest Whitaker, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst and Gwyneth Paltrow.
And this from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research "Gore's 20 room mansion in a Nashville suburb consumes more electricity every month than the average household does in a year". "Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from 16,200 kwh in 2005 to 18,400 in 2006."
No hypocrisy there..........for sure.
And he pays some dude to save a bunch of rainforest for him to offset his carbonm emmissions. Gore actually does put his money where his mouth is.
Then maybe he should at least have his mail sent to a small solar powered apartment in Nashville so it all looks good.
Well I think it's an important point that he is illustrating. You can have your mansion and jet around and still do something positive for global warming. It may be an inconvenient truth but it doesn't mean you have to get off the grid or alter your lifestyle.
Well you know since someone gave Tommy examples about how not all Hollywood liberals came to the Oscars in strech SUV's he doesn't find that topic relevent and needs to change the subject to something else.
Didn't you hear? Liberals are not allowed to discuss the enviornment unless they live in solar powered sheds made from re-used garbage.
Didn't you hear? Liberals are not allowed to discuss the enviornment unless they live in solar powered sheds made from re-used garbage....by mhk
No, but their lectures about the subject are hypocritical & meaningless IF they don't live the way they are instructing the rest of us to do.
Do As I Say And Not As I Do is not gonna impress too many people.
And it just so happens that Al Gore is living the way he is asking others to do, despite what Drudge, Hannity, et al want to you think. And as for everyone else at the Oscar's that's being labeled a hypocrite with one grand sweep of Tommy's arm, you and I have no idea (apart from the examples already given) what these people do in their private lives.
Great analysis Jeter, you hit the nail on the head exactly. Some people here don't like it when they are accused of coddling hypocrisy when it suits them, they get all pissy and everything.
I have no issue with you pointing out hypocracy what I take issue with is your continued attempts to generalize individuals without a shred of fact.
I think your continued attempts to cast a negative light on the movie and the award that it won because someone clapped during the award ceromony and drove up in an SUV is pretty transparent. I'm glad your conformtable making a judgement call on people when you have absolulty no idea what their individual view is on the issue in question and no idea what each of them drove up in.
I look forward to seeing you apply this same standard of "outrage" to everyone on your future posts and not just a group of individuals you have issue with.
Jeter and Tommy
I have a follow up question for both of you....
I'm and little confused about this issue and I was hoping that you could clear up a few questions I have on your arguments. Did the Ultra-Hollywood liberals in said SUV's have "Go Green" sticker on the back or were they handing out Green Peace pamphlets on the red carpet? Are you basing your argument on the fervor the alleged SUV driving environmental liberals displayed while clapping?
MHK,
I can't speak for Jeter, obviously - but for me it goes to what my original post was about. Many of the global warming alarmists, including the Hollywood ones, love to lecture us and act all environmentally sensitive and concerned - when it comes to everyone else. They are so self-absorbed in their huge energy consuming lifestyles surrounded by people who tell them how wonderful and socially conscious they are, yet they fail to see the hypocrisy of their public preachings while wallowing in limousines and energy conservation recklessness........they have every right, just don't live one way, and act publicly in ways which are at odds with those concerns. All of us should treat the environment with respect.....and I believe we did not inherit the earth from our parents, but we borrow it from our children, as someone wiser has said. Global warming is a controversial issue for certain, but we should all live as though it is not....that would be a good thing.
"the Hollywood ones, love to lecture us and act all environmentally sensitive and concerned" --Tommy
1. Who specifically are you talking about?
2. How are you able to tell it is all "act[ing]" on their part?
You've yet to provide one concerete example of someone from Hollywood that doesn't practice what they preach. I think your original point was very clear and that you were attempting to lump all of liberal Hollywood into one neat package based on your opinion.
I'm sorry, but the way you've presented your argument sounds like an attempt to present opinion as fact.
One nutcase alarmist that comes to mind is Meryl Streep. She scared the crap outa most of the population w/her hysterical claims about Alar (chemical) used on apples, and the industry about ground to a halt while her irresponsible proclomations were being shown for what they were--BS that cost family farmers multipile millions.
Unless someone is willing to go into details, this generalizing is pretty weak, IMO. Sure it is wrong to not practice what you preach. I haven't seen any links here that indicate a clear-cut hypocrisy by anyone although that is the clear implication by some posters.
Just mindreading, strawmen and stereotypes. Unfortunately, not much intelligent discussion going on about this.
Great job at changing the subject every time somebody throws down some facts that get in the way of your idiotic generalizations. But it's nice to see that your concern for the environment is so great that you're worried about what sort of carbon imprint Gore is leaving. And of course I'm sure you're doing your part too, right? Because what kind of person would take another person to task for not driving a hybrid if they themselves weren't driving a hybrid as well? Boy, that person would have to be some sort of jerk with no real point and with nothing of substance to contribute, wouldn't he?
Hey, if you're among those that thinks global warming is gonna be GOOD for us, you don't need to worry about such things.
No, there's no hypocrisy at all. Read Gore's response to those charges to see how foolish you're being with this argument.
[link to thinkprogress.org]
people arrived at the oscars in limos, so therefore let's not worry about global warming. is that tommy's point? because i don't see what this has to do with anything. another of his lifeless talking points.
Actually, nothing more than showing how some liberals can't walk the talk, that's all. Use the information as you wish.
i never would have known if you hadn't told me.
"Actually, nothing more than showing how some liberals can't walk the talk, that's all. Use the information as you wish."
So everyone who clapped for Al Gore last night was liberal?
Everyone who clapped drives an SUV or came in a limo?
I don't know, Tommy, those seem like a lot of baseless allegations to me. I think you're gonna have to provide some evidence to back up your theories.
Actually, a lot of that crowd has experience with applause.
You haven't named even one liberal *by name* who "cheered-on" Al Gore and his movie but came to the event in a gas-guzzling limo.
In other words, you've shown nothing. Except contempt-absent facts. Per usual.
Discussion of global warming brings out the hate in people like Tommy and Lemoc, more than any other subject. It seems to spring from some kind of class/wealth envy.
(do I spit my coffee all over my keyboard with uncontrollable laughter on that one, or just double over in hysterics?)
No, if you want to see real hate from Tommy go back and read any thread where the topic was a white person being accused of saying something bigoted. Or at least those threads where his hateful comments haven't been deleted.
The predictability of your posts where you obviously feel so threatened by me...??...either trigger laughter or pity. I'll decide which they are as they come........don't disappoint me now.
Threatened by you? By what, your flawless logic, your deep knowledge of history and current events, or your charm and wit? What is it that I'm supposed to be threatened by? Please enlighten us. And while you're scrambling to come up with yet another nonsensical response, why don't you spend some of your obviously precious time responding to one of the umpteen posts in this thread where you've ignored a direct question or challenge to your false charges of hypocrisy. You cry "hypocrite!" and then you cut and run when faced with actual facts that refute your silly charges.
(do I laugh or pity you?) Let's see, this one actually tickles me, thanks again - you don't disappoint.
Tommy, I think pity is in order for "Clams" but you decide.
Actually, it's neither - it's really indifference.....but the pathetic soul is so obsessed with me that I have to give him some attention, so I throw him a bone now and then.
ROTFL!!! I noticed that about "Clams". He's as obsessed with you as Rusty is with DiCaprio.
Did you *really* "roll on the floor laughing?"
Have fun patting yourselves on the backs boys!
The fact that neither of you can provide anything other the your own jaded opinions and lame attempts to divert attention from Claims questions is very telling.
Help me! I'm shrinking.....
Noooooo!!!!!!
This is the new diversionary strategy: instead of addressing my points or even my direct questions, just repeat ad infinitum how I'm "obssessed" with Tommy. Nevermind the fact that I've posted directly to Tommy maybe three times in as many weeks, while Tommy continues to write at least 100 posts a day. I'm obssessed with him and therefore any comments I make are completely invalid and should be ignored at all costs.
Oxide...
Contempt yes, hate no. I don't hate anybody, and you're just desperate.
Yeah, it is just like those rabid war supporters who just will not sign up for the armed services... right? oh wait...
"Did you think there might be a reason why a star might come in a limo or SUV to a very public event?" - MHK
Uh, yeah, MHK. These "Stars", as you call them, are nothing more than self-absorbed, narcissistic, mostly drug/alchohol-dependent losers who make their fabulous fortunes pretending to be somebody else. They arrive in limos to stoke the strange symbiotic relationship between their insatiable appetite for attention and the adoring fans' need to worship them.
Whoo - jealous much?
Money for nothin' and chicks for free.
Shuddup and sell those micrwave ovens.
I just move and deliver them. Sales is for fancy-pants college boys. (shakes fist)
CLSN - I would appreciate it very much if you just stopped responding to any of my posts unless you actually have something to back up your comments other then stupid generialzations.
Thank you
They cheered for everything. Except for fatal instinct 2...
"I don't believe I said Al Gore drives anything?"
Exactly!
Who cares what the "people who clapped for Al Gore" drive.
Does their clapping mean that they're for global warming advocacy? Does their clapping mean that they're hypocrites?
"I don't believe I said Al Gore drives anything?"
Wrong. He drives Tipper nuts.
No, his favorite transportation is a Gulfstream.
Mindreading again. Such a weak way to argue.
No arguing goin' on here.
So I see. Just pointless babel. Thanks for the input.
Stop thinking that pointless Babel, and I'll stop reading your mind and rreporting it.
Stop pretending you can read minds and it assures there will be less pointless babel
"Open" mind, would you please offer something other than accusing others of mind reading and/or creating strawmen? it's getting a bit stale.
I couldn't agree more. Stop doing it and I will stop saying it. Agreed?
;^)
Implying that all of Hollywood drives around in stretch limos all the time and citing Oscar night to prove it is... well, a stretch.
You're reachin' on this one .
And yes, I know you didn't say "all the time" but that's your implication.
You're right, I didn't say all the time.
actually you did say "all the celebs who cheered for gore".
But you can see how predictable your posts are.
I truly fail to see how arriving in a limo at a special occasion type of event, especially one as supremely recognized as the Oscars, makes a person a hypocrite if they supported Gore's documentary.
It's a one-night event, and you can't throw the label "hypocrite" around because of one night in a limo. Does a Prius-driving hollywoodite become a hypocrite because of one night in a stretch? Hardly. Just another poorly constructed attempt at a smear from someone absolutely desperate to demonize their political opposition.
Yeah tommy! It is almost like all those GWOT supporters who joined the armed forces.... right? oh wait....
Does it really matter if they are being hypocritical? Does it make it any less dire?
Of course. In the conservative mind, if a hypocrite exists somewhere, then there's no global warming.
It lessens their credibility on the issue........but you are correct, it does not go directly to the issue itself.
Focusing on hypocricy tends to allow some people to direct debate away from the real meat of an issue. All too often it's the messenger's hidden agenda, hypocricy, infidelity etc. etc. that trumps the bad news they bring.
Let's all remember that when the word hypocrisy is thrown around here endlessly when used by certain liberals........ok, we will stop with that word and on to "double standard".........cool?
I know this board AND the right go on and on about 'moviestars' and all that, but outside of being load and obvious? There isn't much there. Most of these folks are people who make a living 'pretending' to be someone else. Not that this particular job makes you dumb...it just doesn't qualify you as an expert on anything. (except maybe...on shiny stuff)
I haven't had a television in about 21 years. I don't really have any idea who this guy di Capricio is...i saw his picture on google...but if you look at that kid? and then look at the rest of us? if you would have given most of us gobs of money at his age? whew...i'm sure i would be some rehabed, recycled has been at this point. so, they guy might drive a toyota...or he might ride around in a big limo once in a while...i just don't think it has much bearing on anything or anyone...save for those folks who read all the magazines in the dentist's waiting room.
No thanks. I prefer kippered herring to the red variety.
no clue what color it was so you may be correct about that, but the rest of your statement was pure right-wing noise-machine hogwash;
http://www.centredaily.com/128/story/25276.html
Wow. I got whiplash from following that exchange. Let's see...
- There is no warming.
- Okay, maybe there's a little warming, but it's good.
- Al Gore hates poor people.
- Al Gore hates cars.
- Al Gore wants me to be all sweaty.
Why does John "Organic lettuce KILLS!" Stossel still have a job?Well, it's actually quite simple. Everything is Al Gore and Bill Clinton's fault. There.
I will NEVER understand how global warming is a political issue?
Makes no sense to me. Is it just because of Al Gore?
money
Because despite what history has shown us about technology, there's a huge fear out there that any further emissions restrictions will cost industry some big bucks, and that wouldn't make the books look quite as sweet for potential investors. Ergo, the most efficient use of industrial dollars is wining and dining congressmen who - after an enlightening lunch and luxury box tickets - realize the futility of tightened emission controls, and will campaign strongly against such "liberal" and unnecessary legislation. And people can rally behind both their parties and the 2% of non-climatology scientists who still claim that they're less than convinced, and they can accuse "hypocrisy" of those who oppose them, which as we all know is - by rule - an instant neutralizer of facts and changer of subjects. So that on the one night of 365 that said opposition takes a limo half a block to an event which is watched my hundreds of millions of celebrity droolers and wannabes worldwide, all previous years of scientific data collection and analysis can be forgotten. And they win the argument, and that makes industry happy, and it makes investors more at ease, and it saves face for guys like stossel who stuck by a wrong-headed early prognostication and found his hinie buried deep on the wrong side of the subject.
And that's what it's all about. It's about never having to say "sure, I get paid to do research and investigate. But sometimes a guy just has to assert something of which that guy's completely ignorant, and then defend that assertion to the bitter end, reality be darned."
It's pretty lame that our whole future can come down to a fancy restaurant and some luxbox seats. these guys must be serious losers.
Global warming may be a good thing, or it may hasten the end of existence as we know it. Let's let our bottom line decide if we should do anything about it. I'll be cursing these global warming hold outs when I draw my last breath, dying from dehydration because of drought. It amazes me the audacity to simply dismiss what they don't want to here and it involves our very survival as a species. Thanks for nothing wing nuts!
Since MAN (the species) is the intruder on this heretofor perfect orb, shouldn't the hastening of his demise (as a species) be a welcome thing, the sooner the better? The likelihood of his cousins (primates) doing similar damage anytime soon is slim to none (have you checked out their research, or the condition of their arts programs lately--stalled, to put it kindly).
And why does it matter, anyway? Seriously.
if it's limited to you and your troll pals, i agree. you serve no purpose.
The questions posed are essential to the discussion. Try to get past your impulse for trite, trance-like, reflexive name-calling.
You are making a fairly ridiculous strawman argument. However, I guess you seem to take it pretty seriously. No one is advocating the extinction of all mankind in any way.
The opposite would seem to be the case. It would seem our prospects for survival would improve the less our impact on the life giving environment around us.
Reasonable.
Thank you.
We didn't inrtrude. Abused maybe but we are part of the biosphere like all other living things.
"You can not go against nature, because if you do, go against nature that's part of nature too"
Love and Rockets
Thank you, Bing.
Reasonable.
As an atheist, here is what I consider relevant. When viewed from a cosmological time frame, ie 10's of millions of years. The time span that includes humans burning fossil fuels can barely be measured. Even if we figure out how to use frozen methane reserves (google that technology if you really want to see the climate change!) When the last fossil fueled "fire" goes out, maybe 10,000 years will have gone by, more likely one thousand at the most. Even if the worst of the predictions is correct, no one is going to drown from sea levels rising. Obviously, millions of people will suffer climate change caused lives, sub sahran desertifacation(sp), increase in storm intesities etc. but it appears to me , based on reading hundreds of articles, that we have passed or will pass the tipping point, beyond which no amount of carbon emission reduction will have a meaningful impact. I think we are in for it, and we better prepare wisely. It does not matter at this point if the climate change was man made or not, it's happening, and once the northern latitudes start to melt, it's a long irrevesible cycle, hundreds of thousands of years long. The amount of methane that will be released due to permafrost melting and decomposition is staggering and many orders of magnitude greater than what we have released so far.
But, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe cares not for our welfare and will continue on quite nicely without us. Don't be fooled by mythologies that inflate the importance of one particular species.
Just as long as I can crawl up to Limbaugh, as we're both dying from dehydration and starvation, and croak "...told ya so".
I'd spit at him, but... no.... saliva... left....
</life>
Thank you, Pit...
Sounds logical.
What in ten thousand thundering typhoons is John blathering about...?? Seriosly, can he make a point where one sentence connects to the next in ANY logical fashion...??
I listened carefully to John Stossel’s comments, since the transcripted version sounded very obtuse to say the least. I’m equally puzzled by his comments now after listening to the audio clip. I don’t know about John Stossel’s background, but he sounds completely unqualified to talk about global warming and its implications. What does he mean “wreck the lives of poor people and turn our freedom over to Al Gore”? This is completely inpenetrable thinking. John Stossel, shut up and get off the air! By the way, RFK Jr. authored one of the best researched (and referenced) articles I have read about the 2004 election (Was the 2004 election stolen, Rolling Stone, 2006). Compare this to John Stossel’s website where he uses red herrings and anecdotal evidence to trash the UN Millennium Project.
Blow your AC 24/7; drive your SUV, eat cow 24/7 and crap on the planet, screw the kids, pile em' with debt.....
You frikkin' piece of right-wing scum.
..."screw the kids"...meaning, don't tell them that Social Security is a chain letter?
I knew that's what you meant. Good call. Stay the course. Don't let 'em have their own money. Not even in a U.S. Savings bond. Too risky.
"Screw the Kids" was probably a reference to Stossel's well-known hatred of teachers' unions and insistence upon making American education a free market system, which works wonderfully for the kids whose parents can afford excellent and expensive schools. Project all you like, though.
"Screw the Kids" was probably a reference to Stossel's well-known hatred of teachers' unions and insistence upon making American education a free market system, which works wonderfully for the kids whose parents can afford excellent and expensive schools-BLR
That statement, BLR, shows extreme ignorance of the current state of education in America. Unions have destroyed America's once-great education system. Even a cursory look at the facts would tell you that. Parents of children in poorer areas have for years been trying to get their kids out of failed government schools through vouchers. They are swatted down every time by the unions who contribute mightily to the democrat party who, most dutifully, continue the status quo.
If you can come up with a voucher system that is mindful of the Constitution, then have at it. It turns out to be a pretty big "if" though from what I have seen.
Personally, my kids go to an incredible public school. I would hate for my kids to suffer as a result of a poorly thought out radical plan. Just wait til my kids get into college before you start screwing everything up, please.
Open your mind just a wee bit, Open Mind: http://www.asbj.com/2002/10/1002schoollaw.html
What is your point? I am aware of that controversial 5-4 decision.
The problem is that each state has its own Constitutional hurdles as well, which the article you supplied alludes to.
I don't really have any major problems with voucher programs although it appears that some appear to naively regard it as a panacea of sorts. I am not really that optimistic about it. In practice it may become increasingly difficult to reconcile with the Constitutions for each state and nationally and not just on First Amendment issues.
Considering this thread is originally about John Stossel's apparent idiocy on Global Warming, I won't go into detail. We are already way off-topic as it is.
I miss the late 60's when people like Stossel would go to a speaking engagement and get a pie in the face. What a jerk, like Beck, whose brain wiring is all twisted anyway.
Yes, God forbid there be a differing opinion. Free speech should only be a right given to libs.
Agreed.
You can be the first to observe that rule.
Wow, nice retort
Thanks. Wasn't sure you'd appreciate the effort.
Yeah, what's next Brainiac? "My daddy's bigger than you're daddy?" "I'm rubber you're glue"?
I was right. You didn't appreciate the effort. And that makes me sad.
Not even kudos for correct spelling?
Yes SavageRocks because your comments were so insightful.
Of course anytime someone offers a criticism of a conservative that must mean that they secretly want to stifle their free speech.
Where have all the cowboys gone! To rawhide?
Keep trollin', trollin', trollin',never really knowin',if what you're repeatin', been said!Don't try to get yer facts straight,once you post it's too late,your lies and those deflections, will decide.spread those rumors thick,Let's see what will stick, obtuse observations will abide.
Spin it up, spread it thick, Keep repeatin', make it stick, Lay it on, Obfuscate Dittohead! Set it up, claim it's fact, Who will check? Grey is black, Get yer facts - from faux news, Dittohead!
Wow, all that rhyming...you must have ACED kindergarten! However you offer no facts, or points to this debate. Nice try.
It was a song, dummy. Sung to the tune of rawhide. Kinda describes you, so no surprise you didn't get it.
BTW, what do you call a black man flying an airplane?
Way to bring race into an enviromental issue becuase you are unable to debate someone successfully. I knew it was rawhide, idiot, the Trolling part was a giveaway....quite clever. About as contrived as Al Gore's Inconsistant Lie
And your evidence that An Inconvienient Truth which DID win the Oscar is a lie is WHAT again? Oh you dont have any? Imagine my suprise. Ya got nothin as usual
Where have you been?
www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/did-global-warming-stop-in-1998
We already went over this...I'm sorry you were late to class. There is also the Oregon Petition, and I'm not going to do the leg work for you....just google global warming, differing views, man caused, solar activity, etc. There are differing scientific views out there. Next time please pay attention I'm tired of repeating myself for slow minded libs
"There is also the Oregon Petition, and I'm not going to do the leg work for you" --savagerocks
The burden is on you to support your own arguments. It sucks, but it seems to be the kind of thing grown-ups tend to do.
After all, you can't possibly expect us "stupid libs" to possibly navigate the complex "series of tubes" that comprise the "internets".
Do you KNOW what the word COMMENTARY MEANS? An editorian OPINION by some group you ran across is NOT any sort of proof An Inconvienient Truth is a lie. Its just their opinion. Pretend all you want there is no scientific consensus about Global Warming thats all it is a pretense. There is cough up some evidence of those lies you are talking about not someone saying well we think Global Warming will continue but we arent that concerned. Otherwise you just look foolish. I can show you an OPINION piece by the Flat Earth Society saying the Earth is flat, doesnt make it a scientific consensus. Trust me considering how BAD you are at it I wont be asking you to do any of my research but YOU were the one chastising someone else for not having facts in THEIR post when you still have an unbroken record of NEVER having any in yours.
Oh, I was just checking to see if you remembered the joke. Glad to see you only remember part of it though. I wrote that lyric just for you!
Clever, now until you can bring something to the debate please go sit at the kiddie table
clever moves me from the kiddie table to the teen table. Let me know when you move up to join me! ;)
Don't take anything too personal, btw. If you can't come here and have a little fun every now and then, you are being way too serious.
Do you have any serious points or are you just wasting time?
You seem to have "wasting time" locked up tight. =O
And until you can bring ANYTHING worthwhile to the table keep your commentary for your peers on the Short Bus
The short bus? God, if you are implying what I think you are, that is just WAY too funny? Do they clap when the short bus comes around? ;)
Great artists are fortunate to get any real recognition during their lifetime.
I, for one, wish to go on record as recognizing you as such, regardless of your art's content or intent.
That post showed up in the wrong place. I was lauding your talent as lyricist, Snoopy.
I NEVER said his speech should be repressed. I said he was a jerk-both of them. I would never advocate either of them should be prevented from proving it.
Global warming....Iguess I;m behind. I'm still waiting on that Ice Age that the faulty scientific community promised us in the '70's.
Oh, you're way further behind than that.
Actually, I'm ahead. Man caused global warming is still a theory. MANY scientist in climate and weather fields disagree with the theory.
How many?
Well, you could start with the oregon petition, which had anywhere from 17,000 to 12,00 signatures. If you just google it you get thousands of scientists who have published materials that question the validity of MAN caused global warming. Let's not forget that the scientific community is fallible. This is, afterall the group who brought us "the world is flat", the "ice age is coming", etc.
anywhere from 17,000 to 12,00 signatures.
the scientific community is fallible. This is, afterall the group who brought us "the world is flat"
Okay, as so many times before, you've made your point.
Now go clean your room.
Your sophmoronic insults out you as intellictually inferior. Why can you not argue with actual facts? I'm sorry The gospel of Gore is full of holes but it's not MY fault. Maybe one day one you will be able to have an intelligent cinversation about actual issues with trying to insult someone who gives you the facts when you ask for them. My whole point is that there are legitimate experts who don't think MAN is causing global warming.
You posted a message that asserted that the scientific community was responsible for the flat earth theory.
'Nuff said.
They weren't responsible yet they still believed it and were wrong. Not to mention the "earth is the center of the universe" thing. Galileo was almost killed for refuting it. My point is that scientists make mistakes and the fact of the matter is that many scientist refute the THEORY of man caused global warming.
Um... it wasn't scientists who wanted Galileo dead for his theory.
Bittermarv,
Can you tell us who wanted him dead? Can you provide proof?
It looks like an exaggeration. Gallileo was forced by the Papacy to recant heliocentrism and subsequently died under house arrest from natural causes. If the Church wanted to kill Gallileo, nothing was stopping them.
look at it's handle, just a troll, and apretty bad one at that. Perhaps a new name for someone banned trying to get 'revenge' LOL
Sophomoric insults such as:
Wow, all that rhyming...you must have ACED kindergarten! However you offer no facts, or points to this debate. Nice try.
Yes, but I have given facts. I put links up. My point is simply that the scientific community is not 100% agreed that man is causing global warming
Many theories do not have 100% agreement. Global Warming is a Theory not a Law.
You have done absolutely nothing to prove that theory false. The burden is on you despite your apparently weak efforts to re-frame the issue.
But, think about this...
"Well, you could start with the oregon petition, which had anywhere from 17,000 to 12,00 signatures"
why would anyone in their right mind imply that the number of supporters is shrinking from 17K to 12K?
And the FACTS you brought were WHAT? Calling an Oscar winning documentary full of holes and a lie, wait those arent facts they are baseless assertions. The next fact you bring will be your very first. When are you going to learn the difference between you just stating something and a fact?
Solon, settle down... I've already posted a link...twice and won't post it again so you can catch up. Go back and read some postings
A yeah an opinion piece does not constitute any FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Most children learn this in second grade. You have not brought a single FACT to the table as of yet. I wont hold my breath waiting til you do either.
Wrong again. The learned people of the world from Ancient Egyptians to the Mayans KNEW the world was a sphere millenia before Columbus. It was the Catholic Church and dogma that brought us the world is flat.
If you would be so kind as to point out the Catholic dogma that first declared the Earth flat?
Thanks,
I will point out that they burned Giordani Bruno at the stake and put Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life for teaching otherwise, will that do?
Solon,
Your note is (inadverdently?) misleading. It should have said dogma at the time. Both Galileo and Bruno were at the time proferring ideas at the time that some Church leaders thought heretical. Bruno was not only considered heretical for his scientific views but his also pronouncements that Jesus was a skillful magician. Galileo offended the Pope which hurt his cause.
In the historical context, the Protestant Reformation was under way and the Church was besieged by different groups breaking away and creating, what the Church felt, new doctrine. (And of course challenging the hierarchy.) So they were troubled times to be sure and many mistakes were made and innocent people punished and put to death by both the Church and the Reformers.
The Church has since fully pardoned both and apologized with great sorrow for its error.
Has the Church apologized yet for covering up all the pedophilia? It's hard to keep track of the apologies.
They took a number.
It's their turn right after the ACLU.
The ACLU did not hide pedophiles for decades nor does the organization have any pedophelia scandal to appologize for your weak and frankly ignorant post notwithstanding.
Are you referring to this, Lemoc? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54471
Why should the ACLU apologize for that?
1. Was Mr. Tierney representing the ACLU when he was allegedly committing that crime?
2. Did Tierney use his former position with the ACLU to enable his alleged crimes?
3. Did the ACLU engage in a coverup of Mr. Tierney's alleged crimes?
How is that analogous to the Catholic Church coverup of active pedophile priests?
Weak.
I dont see your point. The bottom line is the OFFICIAL reason Giordani Bruno was burned at the stake was teaching heretical doctrine. Galileo the same. The point is it WAS the church pushing this doctrine when most of the learned people of the world knew was false since ancient times. Aristarchus knew three centuries BEFORE Christ and HE was Greek. So I think the burning of Giordani Bruno and house arrest of Galileo makes my point quite well
Is the Oregon Petition the best you have?
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400* signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. [14]One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency? [15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_PetitionNo you have never been ahead, all you do is repeat warmed over rightwing talking points usually far behind the power curve. There was NEVER any scientific consensus the world was cooling. It was brought up. NOW there is absolutly a scientific consensus on Global warming. Denying reality is a rightwing strongsuit.
Solon,
It seems to me the argument isn't about global warming, it's about whether it is man made. The earth may be warming but the evidence attributing this warming because of the internal combustion egine and to the degree it is causing warming in the atmosphere is what is disputed.
OK, then lets limit it to THAT argument. The scientific consensus is that it IS at least made worse by man made emissions. Considering the vast amount of those emissions its not that hard to believe. Considering that the most recent report, an exhaustive study by the worlds most pre eminent climate scientists that say they have laid the issue to rest, I think its time to move beyond the argument to what can we do to emeliorate the effects. Why is it we cant take the chance when its Iraq but we need to wait until the Ocean levels rise 100 feet to do anything about Global Warming?
Solon,
There is also debate as to the amount of global warming that is man-made. Some scientists think it is negligble.
However, I agree with you that we can and should do something to reduce the amount of CO2 released. Simple things such as conservation are a small step in the right direction.
However you don't do your side any favors and sound a bit hysterical when you argue with outlandish suggestions that the world's oceans will rise 100 feet if we don't do anything about it. Time to calm down.
Hysterical? Outlandish? Do you have ANY idea how much water is bound up in the Antarctic icecap alone? It was more than two MILES thick? Here is what the Australian gov says about it
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=5548
Ninety percent of the world's ice (29 million cubic kilometers) and approximately 80 percent of its fresh water, is locked up in the Antarctic icecap. If all the ice were to melt, the level of the world's oceans would rise by 65 to 70 meters
Now this is the highest estimate I have seen but its more than twice 100 ft. I have also seen as low as 20 ft but thats the lowest I have seen. Given this wide approximation 100 feet isnt out of line. Especially since just three feet would be catastrophic for the coastal areas. Perhaps 100 ft is an exageration, PERHAPS if so its not much of one and that doesnt effect the overall point that rising ocean levels would be a huge problem
Oh my goddess, do you guys have anything else? It's always the 70s Newsweek article (not the same as a scientific consensus, by the way, but far be it from me to split hairs), Al Gore's private jet, and Richard Lindzen.
Really, that all you got?
Amazingly, only one comment here mentioned anything about laziness--one star was taken to the Kodak a half block by limo. I live in Nagoya, a city of about 2 million in central Japan, and nearly every day I walk 45-50 minutes to work. There should be more talk here about getting around alternatively, rather than by car. Public transit, despite the heavy auto traffic here, is almost always packed--and very efficient. Leave the car at home and get some exercise-walk, take a bicycle, hop on a subway or train if you've got them where you live. If your city is too small, chances are it's a breeze to walk or cycle anywhere.
Just a footnote here: Jack Layton, the leader of Canada's left-leaning political party the NDP, gave up his car years ago. These days he walks or uses public transit. The sad thing is he'll never get elected as Prime Minister. The reason? We all know the more powerful political parties are in bed with big oil. The current PM, Stephen Harper, comes from oil country--the province of Alberta, home of the environmentally unfriendly Oil Sands Project. Much of the oil from this project is exported to the US. Can we beat big oil? I certainly think it is worth a try.
We can all do our bit.
Not to mention the health benefits from walking! I congratulate you on your efforts.
I would like to walk, like you. My only problem is that I live approximately three miles from where I work. (I have walked and biked to and from on several occasions.) My only routes to get from my house to my work are via one of two two-lane highways with "soft" shoulders. As much as I like walking, I do not want to jeopardize my life by walking 3 feet from cars travelling 45-60 mph. for a mile or two both ways every day. The State of Ohio, in it's infitite wisdom, repaved the overpasses and took out the raised pedestrian sidewalks. the only thing that separates the pedestrian part from the road is a paved line. So besides the shoulders, now I have to navigate over long overpasses with approximately three feet of walkway between the traffic and the wall and no place to move except over the bridge, if a car happens to veer off the road just a hair or two.
But I'm all in favor of public transportation where economically feasable. The rising gas prices might just make that happen sooner rather than later.
Your situation sounds difficult. Obviously planners fail to make some cities and towns user friendly--in other words, they are built for auto-owners. That can be blamed on 1950s urbanization, which may in part have been linked to big oil and auto. I can't say that I have any facts on that, but would like to know more about the whole connection between suburban sprawl/oil/cars.
Hope you find a way to get around that benefits you anyway. Good luck.
You obviousely don't realize that big oil and the auto industry gobbled up anything that remotely resembled mass transit decades ago. They still stab any type of competition in the back so as to keep Americans @sses in the seats of their cars, and keep corporate profits in high gear. Not to mention their unholy alliance with congress. You don't walk around downtown areas here in the US. We've got a 2nd ammendment to the constitution. I realize that guns are illegal in Japan.
Actually, I am well aware of how the oil and auto industries have destroyed public transit--but I'm glad you brought that up. I am truly surprised it's not happened here, since Toyota is obviously one of the country's most influntial and profitable companies. I believe Japan has some unique form of socialist capitalism! Everything is pretty uncompetitive, which keeps prices rather high but also most people working. I think we North Americans are pretty stubborn, too (and we have the gall to claim Japan is slower to change!), which means most people would rather have a car than use a bus, or even a bicycle. Perhaps I was too hasty blaming it all on big corporations and politicians. Sure, they're unethical but we have to make choices too, and that means walk the two blocks to the 7/11--if it's a safe time of day--rather than drive. I used to be guilty of driving pathetically short distances back in Canada when I was in my early 20s, but there is no excuse for it now.
Thanks for the comment.
The oil sands project...
That oil is so close to the surface that some of it actually pools on top. Kinda like the Brea Tar Pits (Wilshire Blvd.).
Which environmental concerns are you talking about?
Would someone please explain to me why the southern polar ice cap on Mars is receding? Too many SUVs? Coal plants? Pollution? Uh.... HOW ABOUT SOLAR ACTIVITY??? For God's sake people, wake up and smell the hysteria. The Earth IS in a warming period now which will be followed by a cooling period in the future, followed by a warming period and so on, and so on, no matter what Al Gore froths about. Gore is two seconds from a mental meltdown and people actually take his heated lunacy seriously. Now THAT is truly frightening.
Well there are plenty of scientists who insist man is at least part of the cause--one being renowned Canadian scientist David Suzuki. As for Gore's mental stability, please show us some proofof that. He may have gained some weight recently, but as for his intellect...show me anyone as sharp on the right.
Leave the smears to Rush and co.
HOW ABOUT SOLAR ACTIVITY???
How about it? From the IPCC report:
It's called science, dude. You can actually check these things...
valen,
If you read further, the working group (Working GroupI) states important caveats to that conclusion, in essence saying there is large uncertainty over the absolute value of the the Total Solar Irradiance. and the reconstructions methods of scientific understanding are very low. They add that knowledge of solar radiative forcing is uncertain, even over the 20th century and certainly over longer periods (p. 382). They conclude that the mechanisms for the amplificatio of solar forcing ar not well established. (385)
Others have since argued that the solar forcing has been underestimated in most climate extrapolations.
The report also leaves unexplained the high degree of solar magentism seen in records of cosmogenic isotopes and ecosystem parameters studied in terrestrial environmental reservioirs. This lack of knowledge means that the impacts on climate cannot be reliably reproduced by simulations.
The net effect is, imho, the climate models are only as good as the inputs and calculations and the inputs and calculations are incapabale at this time of factoring in the proper amounts of influence by the sun and cosmic rays and electromagneticly charged particles. The scientists do not have enough information or history tracking them in order to properly model them in computer simulations.
I realize these guys don't know much and are ideologically driven, but it may help explain the martian ice cap to you anyway:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/polaricecaps/
Idealogically....or scientifically. The simple fact is that regardless of what the media and Gore say the jury is still out on MAN caused global warming. Yes we are heating up SLIGHTLY but if you look at the theory of temperature being directly coorelated to carbon in the air it is faulty.
www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/did-global-warming-stop-in-1998
Please tell me what "The Left" has to gain by "Pushing" global warming?
We understand what the right has to gain by trying to "debunk" it.
The left is the "eviromentalist" party. Therefore anything that is viewed as an "enviromental" crisis helps the left.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. However, can I now assume that the right is the polluting party?
The left is the party that is VIEWED as the Green party. Let's not forget it was the left that was against Nuclear power (much more clean than conventional). And let us also not forget that sometimes envirometalism goes wrong. Here's some math. Mosquitoes + 3rd world countries - DDT = MALARIA.
They were against nuclear power because of the substandard safety measures, and other harmful effects to the environment. Same thing with DDT. There are other ways to control malaria.
Wouldn't you agree that taking care of our environment is a good thing. What is the harm in stopping wastful practices, recycling, and such?
Well, DDT's back and it's saving lives. Yes protecting the enviroment is a good thing but I'd say human life is better. The simple fact of the matter is that sometimes enviromentalists get carried away, such as global warming. The doomsday theories being thrust on society are out of control. Man caused global warming is still being scrutinized in scientific circles. Also there is the fact that America produced less total pollution than the EU, who signed the Kyoto accord
But my point is, what if it is real (and I think it is) then shouldn't we do what we can to adjust before it's too late?
No, mot till we're sure. India and China are polluting and expanding their industries far faster than we. They're not going to stop building coal plants so if we change it won't matter enviromentally but it will destroy us economically
THAT is a valid argument. We however cannot really put any pressure on THEM to change their policies unless WE get on board. China and India are certainly a big part of this issue
I noticed you forgot to mention that most DDT usage in TROPICAL countries is mostly done indoors, and that there was a proven side effect of less human resistance to the side effects of DDT. So, we got rid of malaria, but brought in other problems. DDT is best effective used in small quantities, but therin lies the problem - given free usage, too many turds like to spray like there is no tomorrow. Are you advocating bringing it back but with governmental controls on who and how it is used?
Yes, DDT is back. However, how it is used has changed dramatically. While traditionally massive amounts were used that had massive effects on the environment, current usages involve relatively small amounts in the house, which keeps the material from entering the broader environment. This change means that DDT while being unsafe for wildlife does not enter the food chain.
DDT is back, but being used differently. DDT is no longer sprayed all over the place. Rather, DDT is being used in small amounts inside. This is a major difference that keeps DDT out of the environment while protecting human life.
Already, some 300 to 500 million people are infected with malaria each year, according to figures published by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. These are staggering statistics, likely to be made far worse this year. Unlike the earthquake and tsunami, though, a malaria outbreak is a preventable disaster.Malaria, as a disease, was once nearly eradicated. It could be again, saving millions of innocent lives worldwide. All that's required is the judicious use of DDT.
That Carson's book "Silent Spring" which erroneously attributed DDT to killing of birds and moving up the food chain was misleading and was admitted by the publisher in the 1972 edition. The back cover of that edition states: "No single book did more to awaken and alarm the world than Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. It makes no difference that some of the fears she expressed ten years ago have proved groundless or that here and there she may have been wrong in detail."
Nevertheless, with Carson's hyperbole as a backdrop, the environmental movement made DDT its flagship cause. By the early 1970s the numerous claims of DDT's harmful effects caused the federal government to hold hearings on the matter. In 1972, the EPA began hearings on the supposed dangers of DDT. The EPA hearings lasted seven months with scientists presenting evidence on the issue. When the hearings concluded, hearing examiner Edmund /;:^ Sweeney ruled that there was no scientific basis for banning DDT. William Ruckelshaus, the head of the newly formed EPA, overturned Sweeney's ruling, despite having been absent during the entire course of hearings.see: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421190/postsOops sorry about the small print above. Here is what it said.
Nevertheless, with Carson's hyperbole as a backdrop, the environmental movement made DDT its flagship cause. By the early 1970s the numerous claims of DDT's harmful effects caused the federal government to hold hearings on the matter. In 1972, the EPA began hearings on the supposed dangers of DDT. The EPA hearings lasted seven months with scientists presenting evidence on the issue. When the hearings concluded, hearing examiner Edmund /;:^ Sweeney ruled that there was no scientific basis for banning DDT. William Ruckelshaus, the head of the newly formed EPA, overturned Sweeney's ruling, despite having been absent during the entire course of hearings.
----------
Me. It has been that way since. An argument has made that no one has killed more people in the last century as Rachel Carson and her junk science book "Silent Spring" because of the banning of DDT.
Ahhh but liberals and environmentalists never talk about the negative effects of their actions do they?
feel free to disagree.. In the small print I posted the reference. Here it is again:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421190/posts"An argument has made that no one has killed more people in the last century as Rachel Carson and her junk science book "Silent Spring" because of the banning of DDT."
Right.... Move over, Adolph. Rachel Carson is the new Hitler.
(in Freeper World)
The only problem with their argument is that DDT was never banned in the tropics. Other than that minor detail, their argument is flawless and well thought-out.
I am sorry Freeperland is a toilet. Not a source worth citing. I would rather go to the Pee Wee Herman fan club site.
Yes, just pick and choose what you want to believe. If it doesn't fit into your ideology it MUST be wrong
And Freerepublic became a peer reviewed scientific site WHEN? Never? Yeah, thats what I thought. You are the champion of disregarding reality. YOU are here arguing AGAINST what is clearly the world scientific consensus and taking ME to task for picking and choosing what I want to believe. You are just lucky your congenital inability to understand your unintentional irony isnt fatal or your head would have exploded with that one.
Solon, it looks tome like you are creating a straw man arguement. I don't see where savagerocks ever claimed the FreeRepublic was a peer reviewed Scientific site.
I think the point he is making, that like many liberals jere, you immediately dismiss any fact or opinion if it doesn't fit your ideological world view. You demonstrate that by categorically dismissing facts (in this case about ddt and Rachel Carson,) simply because you disagree with the ideology of of the website.
While there are differences of opinion and of research regarding global warming, it is certainly reasonable for different people to form different conclusions based on the facts and research they have studied.
I would think you would see that?
If it is NOT a peer reviewed Scientific site then how does his claim that I just pick and choose what to believe have any relevance to this argument? I have SEEN peer reviewed scientific papers on Global warming, I have also been to the sewer that is freerepublic. I think my point is valid to the argument he made. There really isnt any argument that if we hadnt stopped using DDT there would be NO Perigrine Falcons. NONE. That is a simple fact. It was overused, banning it until it could be used in a way not so environmentally damaging wasnt a bad idea. I have no problem that it can be used when used responsibly, that too can be scientifically shown and argued. This is our only world. We definitly need to treat it with more respect than we have shown recently. Otherwise we might just as well write in letters one hundred feet tall on the Grand Canyon "We could have saved it but it just cost too much" as a warning for whatever species, descended from cockroaches and Keith Richards comes after us.
You are promulgating a myth. The peregrine population was in decline years before ddt became a factor due to falconers and egg-hunters.
Of course any chemical used in improper quantities can be harmful. It should be noted that 99% of all plants we eat have natural chemicals designed to repel bugs and other predators, yet we still eat them.
You are so concerned with the Americans that are being killed over in Iraq, but apparently not the millions, let me repeat, MILLIONS who are dying around the world due to malaria, which could be wiped out by use of ddt.
"You are so concerned with the Americans that are being killed over in Iraq, but apparently not the millions, let me repeat, MILLIONS who are dying around the world due to malaria, which could be wiped out by use of ddt." --anotheramerican
Although some environmental groups have argued for a worldwide ban on DDT, "...DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics. In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation. Efforts were shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides." --wikipedia
Blaming liberals for deaths due to malaria in Africa appears to be absolutely baseless.
open mind,
It was the hysteria caused by cause celeb Rachel Carson that effectively stopped the use of ddt. Maybe you don't remember it, but that effectively started the environmental movement which, as we have seen, has been adopted as one of the rallying cries by the liberal press, liberal politicians, liberal movie stars and one particular ex veep.
You haven't shown where Carson is responsible for deaths in Africa. DDT was never banned there. That is the root of the argument and it is absolutely false.
I dunno, but she WAS hot in Sharkey's Machine--who's gonna deny that?
"It was the hysteria caused by cause celeb Rachel Carson that effectively stopped the use of ddt." --AnotherAmerican
DDT was banned in the US. That is true. The claim is that Carson is responsible for the deaths of people in the tropics, which is false.
If you want to ban Carson for some malaria deaths in the US, go ahead. It just doesn't come close to justifying comparisons to NAZI's. It also would likely be mitigated by her work against PCB's, which I am assuming no one has a beef against her for.
DDT isn't a panacea either. According to the wiki article, it can only really be used effectively for about 7 years. It seems natural selection gets involved and the insects develop an immunity.
Oops. I meant "blame" Carson and not "ban" Carson. My bad.
A MYTH? That is rightwing propaganda. The birds were DYING due to thin eggshells, due to DDT. Open mind blew your other ludicrous argument out of the water so I wont bother with it. Here is what a GOVERNMENT WEBSITE has to say about the peregrine falcon
http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_pere.html
Scientists at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center near Laurel, Maryland, investigating the peregrine's decline, found unusually high concentrations of the pesticide DDT and its breakdown product DDE in peregrine falcons and other birds of prey. The peregrines accumulated DDT in their tissues by feeding on birds that had eaten DDT-contaminated insects or seeds. The toxic chemical interfered with eggshell formation. As a result, falcons laid eggs with shells so thin they often broke during incubation or otherwise failed to hatch. As too few young were raised to replace adults that died, peregrine populations seriously declined.
The restrictions placed on the use of DDT and the protection afforded by the Endangered Species Act almost certainly saved the peregrine falcon from extinction
I stand by my previous assertion and if you want to show I am wrong about this you need to do something more than CLAIM I was wrong about this.
ddt also means no more birds. there is a reason why it was banned. as for nuclear energy, i would agree that there is a tendency of some to dismiss it too quickly. i think it needs a second look.
Are birds better than people? Methinks no
BTW,
www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm-63k
Thank you
404 Not Found The requested URL /ddtfaq.htm-63k does not exist.
Maybe Ford is tapping into the Mars automobile market
My bad posted in wrong place
maybe Ford is secretly selling explorers to martians
You can't compare what happens on Mars to what happens on Earth. Mostly because the "ice" caps on Mars are not actually ice as we know it. There is some water ice there, but the parts that wax and wane, or melt as you say, are made from dry ice. So indeed, when it does warm up, the dry ice goes from solid to gas. This happens every single year on Mars.
You are repeating another right wing talking point I've heard regurgitated time and again on the radio about we're not bad off, look at what happens on Mars. And also, while one cap "melts" the other grows. The caps don't melt, they sublimate.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm
I am not sure why the Martian polar icecaps are melting but what I DO know is that Mars has twice been closer to the Earth than it has been in centuries in the last ten years. THAT would mean it is close to the Sun. The Martian orbit is far more elliptical than ours. Its apoge and perigee are more pronounced, that is its orbit is more eliptical and less circular, this could easily account for the melting icecaps.
Is it just me, or does Stossell look alot like to villian in Sleeping With The Enemy?
Yes...he does have a prominent "porn 'stache"
the scientific community is fallible. This is, afterall the group who brought us "the world is flat"
then
They weren't responsible yet they still believed it and were wrong.
Strike one. Contradicting yourself in the span of two posts. Shameful.
Not to mention the "earth is the center of the universe" thing.
Strike two. This also goes with your first sentence, which is mixing up popular belief with scientific theory. A willingness to rely on others' ignorance in order to promote your own as fact. Fails miserably when the ignorance is one-sided.
"...earth is the center of the universe" thing. Galileo was almost killed for refuting it.
By the church. Strike three. Three straight sentences, three whiffs. You wanted an argument based on the facts, there you go.
Maybe now you can explain why I should take any of your future posts seriously. Try to do it without using history - it's not your strong point.
My point is that scientists believed these theories and were wrong. Scientists are not infallile and the THEORY of man cased global warming is still being debated. There IS scientific evidence that the warming is NOT due to man but is naturallly ocurring. I'm sorry if the scientific community which believed these things in the past, have been wrong before. My point is to just swallow up everything you hear without looking into it is, well, stupid
Yes science can be wrong and has been in the past. However the way to argue against science is with the scientific method not I just dont want to believe it for political reasons. They MAY be wrong but it is clearly the scientific consensus as of now and few people argue otherwise. Even the Pentagon is on board on this hardly a left wing fringe organization
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/pentagon.shtml
Commissioned by highly respected Defense Department planner Andrew Marshall, a Pentagon study raised the possibility that global warming could prove a greater risk to the world than terrorism. Among the potential consequences, if climate change occurs abruptly or at the high end of scenario projections, might be catastrophic droughts, famines and riots. The study's principal authors were Peter Schwartz, former head of planning for Shell Oil, and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network, a California think tank.
Well, from a historical perspective, when did we know the earth was flat, and when did we argue about it?
"The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828."
Before the middle ages, it was widely acknowledged that the earth was round. Did Pythagoreus forward the known fact of today 600+ years before Jesus? Not sure, but by 100+ past Jesus, it was and we even had a rough calculation of the earth's circumference.
So why the again the medeival "claim" of a flat earth? Oh, that's right, a book, written by an influential fiction writer, swallowed hook, line and sinker by the conservative movement. Much like the 1939 radio program "war of the worlds" by H.G. Wells.
snoop,
Even though your post appears first, I beat ya to it. :-)
I found it funny that you attribute the acceptance of this myth to conservatives. Too bad you tossed that in, for a minute there you almost sounded reasonable. ;-)
Oh, c'mon, can't I get a little leeway? But you are right, I shouldn't have made a gross assumption at the end of a truth. It did detract. It's this darn miller light, I tell ya!
But did you like the H.G. Wells radio cast inference? ;)
Save the Whales.
Did you like my Orsen Wells inference?
Should be spelled Welles.
Holy, moly.
I think I just figured out why you're "savagerocks".
It has nothing to do with being a Weiner fan, does it? It's a complaint of the objects contained within your cranium which inhibit logical thought.
I realize this is futile, but I just have to give it one more try. Because I care...
Yes, scientists often disagree among their colleagues, and have been wrong about some things in the past, (none that you mentioned, by the way). But overall, we've gained more knowledge of the world around us from scientific study in the last 200 years than by more than 1500 years of bible study. And all of this knowledge has been based on a concensus of scientists, not on unanimity. Currently, the concensus is that man-made emissions are CONTRIBUTING to the global warming that the earth - by scientific consensus - is experiencing. So we've got a choice: go against the consensus and side with the "skeptics" (basically buck the odds), or go with the consensus, reduce our emissions resulting in cleaner air, probably cost-savings (as automotive history has shown that our cleaner cars "forced on us" by the government are also fuel savers and more efficient), less reliance on foreign sources of energy, and the likelihood of taking a technological lead over the rest of the world, bolstering our economy.
The downside? Why don't you tell me. 'Cause your right-wing warming-deniers haven't contributed a single thing of any substance.
And by the way, there are many political analysts out there who don't think al-qaeda is going to attack our airports. Why aren't you attacking the stiffer security measures at our airports as vehemently as global warming and al gore?
And by the way, the geocentric theory originated in ANCIENT GREECE, before the bible and was widely believed by the scientific community until Galileo
The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.
-wikopediaCorrect. SavageRocks is trying to rewrite history.
"[Geocentrism] was widely believed by the scientific community until Galileo" --SavageRocks
Links? It was Church dogma at the time. Not scientific dogma. The Church forced Gallileo to recant Heliocentrism.
Galileo, or Copernicus?
Sorry. I wasn't talking about Copernicus at all. Gallileo was forced to recant the idea that the Earth traveled around the sun (heliocentrism) and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Copernicus, Gallileo and Kepler are the three major scientists that advanced the Heliocentrism as a theory.
As far as I can remember the worst thing the Catholic Church did to punish Copernicus was ban his writings until the mid 1700's in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
Well, time to go home now. Just to let you know I'll be off line from now 'till tommorow. Have fun agreeing with each other.
Don't forget to clean your room...
I'm out of here too. Good discussion.
g'night. looking forward to tomorrow!
Have fun in your world of delusional fantasy.
Just for arguments sake SavageRocks, lets assume your right and GW is just a big hoax and there really is nothing to it.
Do you think we should continue down the path we are currently traveling? Do you think things need to change as far as our consumer based culture in the US and other parts of the world?
Do you think there are any real threats to the enviornment or do you think its all overblown?
I'm sure Stossel and Beck have travelled around quite a bit and have been to at least several major cities. I wonder if this throught goes through their minds when looking at the dark brown haze over every single one of those cities: "People have no effect on their environment. Changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere can't possibly have any effect on it."
As good a discussion as can possibly be had between two morons. Beck and Stossel; two bozo's who don't have a clue on the topic but act like they do. But as you all probably know, Beck is a "thinker" not a climatologist. Based on his comments, Stossel must be one of those "thinkers" as well.
Exactly. Leave all the thinking on the new religion of "global warming" to Savage. Beck's a former drug addict turned nice "conservative" talk show guy who's good for a few laughs.
BTW, global warming used to be called by it's correct name: POLLUTION. Reduce pollution and, ta-da, no need for Al Gore's lies.
Your post is highly speculative. You have a right to your baseless opinions.
However, I want to know what precisely did Al Gore lie about?
While the transcription of the two guys has just two parts, where one guy asks what kind of society we live in, and the other answers by saying something about a former Vice President, it's noteworthy that:
The first guy said "global warming" twice...
...and the second guy said variously "...the globe has warmed. Climate changes. It's warmed a little" and "...yes, the globe has warmed and probably will keep warming. And, most likely, man is playing a part"...
...but neither guy used the word EMISSIONS, or any word at all that refers to the toxic waste-product that the process of burning oil results in.
The closest either guy came to referring to the concept of EMISSIONS, was for the second guy to say something about "...what we can drive and whether we can air-condition our house"
And the second guy also snuck in the requisite culprit for the problem we face in regard to this extraordinarily serious Public Health issue:
EMISSIONS?
Oil?
Combustion by-products or waste-products, or CO2 or CO or anything at all EMITTED from a tailpipe or smokestack as a result of burning oil and gas?
Nope... those things aren't causing the problem according to this guy (or at least according to what little he has to say in this brief transcription).
Nope, the culprit is MAN he says... he said "most likely, man is playing a part"
I note this to point out the industry's debate strategy here (the industries being oil and automobile and whatever others make money from burning oil and gas, and therefore work against the regulation of EMISSIONS in the process)...
Their debate strategy involves admitting to the hard-to-prove (or even to define) idea of "global warming", as a way of steering the issue to points meteorological and climatic...
...and steering away from the point of EMISSIONS, or the word EMISSIONS, or any word at all that means EMISSIONS or invokes the concept of EMISSIONS.
And Brothers and Sisters, that's the whole point to this threat to our (and the world's) Public Health: EMISSIONS.
Notice how clever these guys are in not saying that word EMISSIONS, or any word synonymous with it... notice how eager they are to instead say "global warming".
And notice how they make the villian to be MAN (and in so doing, to make many men defensive on the matter), instead of making the culprit out for who it truly is: EMISSIONS.
That's their (the oil and auto industry's) debate strategy in their plotted course to keep from having those EMISSIONS regulated.
They don't give a damn about our (or the world's) Public Health, because it doesn't make any money for them
I'd add, that in having referred to "the hard-to-prove (or even to define) idea of global warming" as the point to which these very industries (oil and auto) wish to steer this debate (and in so doing, steer it away from the discussion of EMISSIONS)...
I'd note also the extraordinary number of comments appearing in the comments thread to this item... and that they seem to be mostly some kind of back-n-forth bickering about "global warming" as an effect.
And I'd note that to be the fallout of making "global warming" the point of the debate... and quite intentional I believe, because as I said it steers the debate hopelessly away from the real point to what it is that so seriously threatens our Public Health: EMISSIONS.
The hundreds of nonsensical comments appearing on this thread, demonstrating the intended purpose of making (as I said) "the hard-to-prove (or even to define) idea of "global warming" as the point of the debate.
Did this guy just step out of the Twilight Zone?
"It's a good thing?" Send this wretch out into the corn field please.
It is absolute ignorance for people to say that global warming is good for the planet. No one is calling for drastic change where we will only be allowed to drive on certain days and not be able to use our A/C. I think that the threat of global warming is suppose to encourage people to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint. The electricity I buy comes from renewable wind energy, I use energy efficient bulbs, I recycle, and I drive a hybrid. My footprint is considerably lower than pompous consumer nazis who are too ignorant and greedy to even acknowledge their wasteful living standards.
http://tecknopuppy.blogspot.com
Support Alternative Energy
JT