bushwacked Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 And the thousands of scientists who support the work? Concerned with political relevancy as well? Oh, I forgot, they are part of Az's international one world government run by communists theory. Could it be they actually firmly believe that what they are doing is beneficial to society? So do the communists I guess. Believe me, you're preaching to the choir over Az's notion that the socialist agenda of dirty hippies driving hybrids is some sort of political power movement relevant to the degree of Big Energy and their $$ interests. But, there is no reason why Gore's global warming tour can't be scientifically sound, beneficial to society, and also beneficial to his own selfish political interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I see why I dont bother chiming in on these threads on this board. +1....anyone who is against this or knocks this is a wee todd... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoMan Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Since no one has addressed my comment about the Nobel Peace Prize being horsesh!t, this guy who commented on the CNN story is on point. Matthew Whitley of Chapel Hill, North Carolina Over the last decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly become a laughingstock. That Al Gore of all people should be honored this year is another nail in the Nobel Peace Prize's coffin of legitimacy and relevance. Much like the prize for literature, the peace prize is becoming nothing more than a political bauble awarded to some political insider advocating the cause of the week. Al Gore has been "working" for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore's paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves? How ridiculous. I'm embarrassed for the legacy of the Nobel Prizes, I'm embarrassed for my country, and, if I were Al Gore, I'd be embarrassed to stand in front of the world claiming to be a worthy, legitimate recipient of the peace prize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 the early favorites for next year: hugo chavez and ahmedinejad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Al Gore has been "working" for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore's paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves? To everyone that says that Gore is a "Johnny-Come-Lately" to the environmental movement... During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s.[62] On 14 May 1989 while still a Senator, Gore published an editorial in the Washington Post which argued that, "Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with the planet Earth. The world's forests are being destroyed; an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer. Living species are dying at an unprecedented rate." [63] On Earth Day 1994, Gore launched the GLOBE program, an education and science activity that, according to Forbes magazine, "made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment".[64] In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.[65][66] He was opposed by the Senate, which passed unanimously (95-0) the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[67] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".[68] On November 12, 1998, Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[69] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. In recent years, Gore has remained busy traveling the world speaking and participating in events mainly aimed towards global warming awareness and prevention. His keynote presentation on global warming has received standing ovations, and he has presented it at least 1,000 times according to his monologue in An Inconvenient Truth. His speaking fee is $100,000.[70] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 the early favorites for next year: hugo chavez and ahmedinejad Shouldn't Castro be nominated for having the world's greatest healthcare system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 To everyone that says that Gore is a "Johnny-Come-Lately" to the environmental movement... +1... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Galileo would have been labled a quack by the Right too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The consensus opinion of the scientific community is a good indicator of the validity of "good" or "bad" science. The politically motivated propoganda on youtube that you are so fond of? Not so much. Columbus was wrong then? The world IS flat after all! What about the politically motivated desire to continue to receive funding from those defending the "people are bad" camp? You are not smart enough to understand the journals I have read on the topic. Not because of raw intelligence, but because you are convinced, independent of what ANYONE says or presents, that the "evil people" are responsible for what is happening. There is NO room for discussion in your mind. You will blindly attack all who oppose your dogma! Solar activity, increased WORLD concentrations of H2O vapor and Methane, both of which are truly significant greenhouse gases (CO2 is not, molar volume, polarity, reactivity, available valence positions and the like, but I'm sure, given your extensive studies chemistry and gases, you already knew that) have increased, are the principal causes of the short term global warming trend. If things keep going the way they are, the world will change drastically from how we know it now. I don't argue that something is NOT happening, I just completely disagree with the methodology, fear mongering and explanation for why it is happening in the Gore camp. We could all stop driving tomorrow and there is a good chance this could keep going for the next 1,000 years. 40 years ago these same "world wide consensus scientist expert dudes" were warning of an on-coming ice-age. The biggest problem that I, and those who have read ALL of the different positions, is that the time-frame/sample of what is going on currently is way too short in terms of the actual geological record to make any absolute conclusions. The sample itself is flawed with regard to testing a hypothesis. It is like running into a chick in the doorway of a sorority house and stating that all people in the world are female. A forty year warming period in the midst of a thousand year cooling trend (I am not saying that is what has happened) is an insignificant event in terms of what happened, climatically, over a thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand year period! The earth could continue this cycle, killing all of us and most of the species on the planet. A couple thousand years after we are gone, the world may continue to heat up, will that still be our fault. Was it our fault when CO2 levels spiked the multiple times before humans and our dirty machines existed? You guys continue to label me as a "conservative" to discount my opinion, but refuse to accept that I agree with you that our cars and factories need to be more environmentally friendly. My reasons for this are much more tangible and logical, not based on some emotional, fear driven hysteria. As a biologist by education (not a lawyer), I am very concerned about environmental issues. But, refusing to drink the CO2 Kool-Aid, makes me an enemy, because though our ultimate desire is the same, I threaten you because I don't agree with you on how we got to the same desired goal. The problem here is that the whole acid rain thingy, coupled with contaminated crops, wide-spread mass bird-death events, frogs growing eight legs and two heads, and simply committing suicide by turning on the car in a closed garage, has not logically implanted itself in the world psyche. So if tangible, real proof that emissions are BAD, we have to make up a monster story to scare everyone into compliance. Realistically, if this fear mongering/bad science position results in world-wide reduction in emissions (good luck bringing the third-world countries that want "theirs" now to buy into this), I think that it is ultimately a good thing! Whatever works to make a cleaner environment is a major positive. The above environmental issues are much more important positive results of this reduction that the possibility that the global warming trend will be halted. If you understand lag-time models in population or environment, you know that we won't see any immediate impact from any action taken by us now with respect to climate change. BUT, we would see almost immediate short-term benis in other areas of the environment within a couple years (or sooner in some environments). But, intellectually, if you are asking me to support the reasons for this change based on Gore and the Bad Science Band, I cannot. I believe that there is a natural, cyclic event happening to the planet right now, with or without the presence of human beings. How do you justify yourself, morally, to all those people in your life around you, to stand on the side of murder, death, and war? How do you justify standing in judgment of me, a faceless internet stranger? What would your response had been if I didn't include the part about I believe it is important to reduce emissions. They are poisonous to the environment, the water cycle, the soil, well, anything alive. Or is your attention span too short to actually read that far? Now.. excuse me while I go kill some children, high five the Reaper and launch a couple nukes! Oh and, God Bless! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Columbus was wrong then? The world IS flat after all! What about the politically motivated desire to continue to receive funding from those defending the "people are bad" camp? You are not smart enough to understand the journals I have read on the topic. Not because of raw intelligence, but because you are convinced, independent of what ANYONE says or presents, that the "evil people" are responsible for what is happening. There is NO room for discussion in your mind. You will blindly attack all who oppose your dogma! Solar activity, increased WORLD concentrations of H2O vapor and Methane, both of which are truly significant greenhouse gases (CO2 is not, molar volume, polarity, reactivity, available valence positions and the like, but I'm sure, given your extensive studies chemistry and gases, you already knew that) have increased, are the principal causes of the short term global warming trend. If things keep going the way they are, the world will change drastically from how we know it now. I don't argue that something is NOT happening, I just completely disagree with the methodology, fear mongering and explanation for why it is happening in the Gore camp. We could all stop driving tomorrow and there is a good chance this could keep going for the next 1,000 years. 40 years ago these same "world wide consensus scientist expert dudes" were warning of an on-coming ice-age. The biggest problem that I, and those who have read ALL of the different positions, is that the time-frame/sample of what is going on currently is way too short in terms of the actual geological record to make any absolute conclusions. The sample itself is flawed with regard to testing a hypothesis. It is like running into a chick in the doorway of a sorority house and stating that all people in the world are female. A forty year warming period in the midst of a thousand year cooling trend (I am not saying that is what has happened) is an insignificant event in terms of what happened, climatically, over a thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand year period! The earth could continue this cycle, killing all of us and most of the species on the planet. A couple thousand years after we are gone, the world may continue to heat up, will that still be our fault. Was it our fault when CO2 levels spiked the multiple times before humans and our dirty machines existed? You guys continue to label me as a "conservative" to discount my opinion, but refuse to accept that I agree with you that our cars and factories need to be more environmentally friendly. My reasons for this are much more tangible and logical, not based on some emotional, fear driven hysteria. As a biologist by education (not a lawyer), I am very concerned about environmental issues. But, refusing to drink the CO2 Kool-Aid, makes me an enemy, because though our ultimate desire is the same, I threaten you because I don't agree with you on how we got to the same desired goal. The problem here is that the whole acid rain thingy, coupled with contaminated crops, wide-spread mass bird-death events, frogs growing eight legs and two heads, and simply committing suicide by turning on the car in a closed garage, has not logically implanted itself in the world psyche. So if tangible, real proof that emissions are BAD, we have to make up a monster story to scare everyone into compliance. Realistically, if this fear mongering/bad science position results in world-wide reduction in emissions (good luck bringing the third-world countries that want "theirs" now to buy into this), I think that it is ultimately a good thing! Whatever works to make a cleaner environment is a major positive. The above environmental issues are much more important positive results of this reduction that the possibility that the global warming trend will be halted. If you understand lag-time models in population or environment, you know that we won't see any immediate impact from any action taken by us now with respect to climate change. BUT, we would see almost immediate short-term benis in other areas of the environment within a couple years (or sooner in some environments). But, intellectually, if you are asking me to support the reasons for this change based on Gore and the Bad Science Band, I cannot. I believe that there is a natural, cyclic event happening to the planet right now, with or without the presence of human beings. How do you justify standing in judgment of me, a faceless internet stranger? What would your response had been if I didn't include the part about Or is your attention span too short to actually read that far? Now.. excuse me while I go kill some children, high five the Reaper and launch a couple nukes! Oh and, God Bless! Pot, kettle, black anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The OTHER inconvenient truth! Interesting how this has been "ignored" as a point of discussion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Galileo would have been labled a quack by the Right too. so now gore is galileo oh supercuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The biggest problem that I, and those who have read ALL of the different positions, is that the time-frame/sample of what is going on currently is way too short in terms of the actual geological record to make any absolute conclusions. 160,000 years is too short a sample size? It has been stated that CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been in the past 160,000 years (CSIRO site). Findings of this type have been questioned by some investigators who scrutinized some "early accurate analyses" and found the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be many times larger than the present value (up to 2450 ppm). This must be qualified by saying that the overwhelming majority of data browsed (what is presented here is but a summary) shows that atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased since pre-industrial times and is presently higher than it has been in 160,000 years. These dissenting investigators also go on to criticise the measurement procedure for ice core data and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and say that currently the measurements are not representative of the true concentrations. For more information on this controversial view, click here. Over the time period spanned in the Keeling curve, it can be seen (Figure 3) that the two sets of data agree quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 One of the German graduate students that I had lunch with today speculated that Al Gore won the peace prize because he invented the internet which then directly resulted in internet porn--all of the other graduate students then agreed that the prize had been appropriately awarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 so now gore is galileo oh supercuts Uh, Az, don't be disingenuous. The Nobel Peace Price was given to Al Gore AND the iPCC. You know, that hugh group of SCIENTISTS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 40 years ago these same "world wide consensus scientist expert dudes" were warning of an on-coming ice-age. Nope. Not that long ago... Another Ice Age? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Columbus was wrong then? The world IS flat after all! Actually..you need to brush up some on your history....only the religious kooks were espousing that view...and religion played a huge part in governance back then. Columbus wasn't driven by such drivel...he had a mind of his own...and in scientific circles it was well known the earth was round. What about the politically motivated desire to continue to receive funding from those defending the "people are bad" camp? You are not smart enough to understand the journals I have read on the topic. Not because of raw intelligence, but because you are convinced, independent of what ANYONE says or presents, that the "evil people" are responsible for what is happening. There is NO room for discussion in your mind. You will blindly attack all who oppose your dogma!Seems you did it as well...and that makes you correct how? Solar activity, increased WORLD concentrations of H2O vapor and Methane, both of which are truly significant greenhouse gases (CO2 is not, molar volume, polarity, reactivity, available valence positions and the like, but I'm sure, given your extensive studies chemistry and gases, you already knew that) have increased, are the principal causes of the short term global warming trend. If things keep going the way they are, the world will change drastically from how we know it now. I don't argue that something is NOT happening, I just completely disagree with the methodology, fear mongering and explanation for why it is happening in the Gore camp. We could all stop driving tomorrow and there is a good chance this could keep going for the next 1,000 years. 40 years ago these same "world wide consensus scientist expert dudes" were warning of an on-coming ice-age.Well put...and that is my dilemma. I am on board with the benfits of cutting CO2 just in general...but to put it in such apocolyptic terms is puzzling to me. The biggest problem that I, and those who have read ALL of the different positions, is that the time-frame/sample of what is going on currently is way too short in terms of the actual geological record to make any absolute conclusions. The sample itself is flawed with regard to testing a hypothesis. It is like running into a chick in the doorway of a sorority house and stating that all people in the world are female. A forty year warming period in the midst of a thousand year cooling trend (I am not saying that is what has happened) is an insignificant event in terms of what happened, climatically, over a thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand year period! The earth could continue this cycle, killing all of us and most of the species on the planet. A couple thousand years after we are gone, the world may continue to heat up, will that still be our fault. Was it our fault when CO2 levels spiked the multiple times before humans and our dirty machines existed? You guys continue to label me as a "conservative" to discount my opinion,It shouldn't discount your opinion...sometimes attitude discounts opinion but refuse to accept that I agree with you that our cars and factories need to be more environmentally friendly.I seen that and acknowledged that you seem to be ready to do something versus nothing..just in case you could be wrong! My reasons for this are much more tangible and logical, not based on some emotional, fear driven hysteria. As a biologist by education (not a lawyer), I am very concerned about environmental issues.I thought in the Michael Vick thread you claimed...or someone did in your stead...that you were a lawyer. My fault....I apologize for putting you in the lawyer camp unnecessarily!! But, refusing to drink the CO2 Kool-Aid, makes me an enemy, because though our ultimate desire is the same, I threaten you because I don't agree with you on how we got to the same desired goal.I agree that is silly. The problem here is that the whole acid rain thingy, coupled with contaminated crops, wide-spread mass bird-death events, frogs growing eight legs and two heads, and simply committing suicide by turning on the car in a closed garage, has not logically implanted itself in the world psyche. So if tangible, real proof that emissions are BAD, we have to make up a monster story to scare everyone into compliance. Realistically, if this fear mongering/bad science position results in world-wide reduction in emissions (good luck bringing the third-world countries that want "theirs" now to buy into this), I think that it is ultimately a good thing! Whatever works to make a cleaner environment is a major positive. The above environmental issues are much more important positive results of this reduction that the possibility that the global warming trend will be halted. If you understand lag-time models in population or environment, you know that we won't see any immediate impact from any action taken by us now with respect to climate change. BUT, we would see almost immediate short-term benis in other areas of the environment within a couple years (or sooner in some environments). But, intellectually, if you are asking me to support the reasons for this change based on Gore and the Bad Science Band, I cannot. I believe that there is a natural, cyclic event happening to the planet right now, with or without the presence of human beings. How do you justify standing in judgment of me, a faceless internet stranger? What would your response had been if I didn't include the part about Or is your attention span too short to actually read that far? Now.. excuse me while I go kill some children, high five the Reaper and launch a couple nukes! Oh and, God Bless! That you have made my positional points better than I could. I am not buying into the science full bore...it doesn't mean I think they are dead wrong...no evidence of that either. Well put McBoog...your answer is probably the best I have read IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 *** BREAKING NEWS *** Al Gore has been stripped of the Nobel Peace Prize and it has been awarded to President Bush by the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Pot, kettle, black anyone? If you think I don't believe that CO2 has some effect, you are wrong. I do not believe it is the primary effect. You have a movie, that yes, was quite difficult to follow. It made little sense and was flawed in so many scientific principals it was embarassing to think that "scientists" lended their names to such forced data. The IPCC report was very interesting and made many accurate observations (have You read it... I have!). Interpretation was another thing. Try The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. AND... A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should warm the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should cool the stratosphere. Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960,[29] which would not be expected if solar activity were the main contributor to recent warming. AND for S&Gs... Positive (reinforcing) feedback effects such as the expected release of methane from the melting of permafrost peat bogs in Siberia (possibly up to 70,000 million tonnes) may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions[24] not included in climate models cited by the IPCC. OR... Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[41] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. (Could it be that cleaning up our act has caused this?)[1] History has seen many memorable public confrontations between belief systems and science data. Despite the scientific merit of the data, belief systems are powerful endemic and forces against which science must struggle. Some modern examples are evolution and global climate change. The mission of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, is not to study causes of climate change, but to document only one cause, human impacts on climate. This kind of mandate validates the recent quote from geologist, Dr. Peter Flawn (2006), President Emeritus of the University of Texas, Austin: ... All of us are guilty to this to an extent! Good Graph Interesting read! Interesting "neutral" position AND... from the journal of Climate. Have you read/evaluated the above information? I have! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Nope. Not that long ago... Another Ice Age? Thanx. I remember this and tuck and cover drills kind of going on at the same time. Nothing like scaring the populous intop submission.. Huh H8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 You don't have to throw more data at me. That wasn't my point. It just seems that everyone is going around calling everyone else regarding this issue as being close minded and it seems that your passion of defending your viewpoint was just as close minded as anyone elses. I don't pretend to understand or even have spent much time on this topic at all. I've just seen what I have seen with my own two eyes for the last few years how those who look to suffer financial pain from policies that would reduce our dependence on current energy methods have engaged in a propaganda movement to discredit all those who say global warming is a problem and we may be causing it. To me, the straw that broke the camel's back was that one White House official who was doctoring EPA reports, later resigned, and went right back to working for the energy industry that he was trying to protect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Since no one has addressed my comment about the Nobel Peace Prize being horsesh!t, this guy who commented on the CNN story is on point. Matthew Whitley of Chapel Hill, North Carolina Over the last decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly become a laughingstock. That Al Gore of all people should be honored this year is another nail in the Nobel Peace Prize's coffin of legitimacy and relevance. Much like the prize for literature, the peace prize is becoming nothing more than a political bauble awarded to some political insider advocating the cause of the week. Al Gore has been "working" for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore's paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves? How ridiculous. I'm embarrassed for the legacy of the Nobel Prizes, I'm embarrassed for my country, and, if I were Al Gore, I'd be embarrassed to stand in front of the world claiming to be a worthy, legitimate recipient of the peace prize. Without delving into interpretable scientific data, I think it's pretty well known fact that his book, Earth in the Balance was published in 1992, meaning he had been working on it before then which means it's at least 16 years, if not more that he's been working on this. But it's so much easier to lie to prove your point isn't it? LMAO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Blah blah blah...check out this youtbue video....blah blah blah. Blah blah blah...check out this youtbue video....blah blah blah. blah blah blah. Blah blah blah [/url] Blah blah blah...check out this youtbue video....blah blah blah. blah...check out this youtbue video....blah blah blah Bad science. Pretty much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 You don't have to throw more data at me. That wasn't my point. It just seems that everyone is going around calling everyone else regarding this issue as being close minded and it seems that your passion of defending your viewpoint was just as close minded as anyone elses. I don't pretend to understand or even have spent much time on this topic at all. I've just seen what I have seen with my own two eyes for the last few years how those who look to suffer financial pain from policies that would reduce our dependence on current energy methods have engaged in a propaganda movement to discredit all those who say global warming is a problem and we may be causing it. To me, the straw that broke the camel's back was that one White House official who was doctoring EPA reports, later resigned, and went right back to working for the energy industry that he was trying to protect. And my point is not to defend a position. THAT is BAD science. And that is why I discredit the efforts of Gore and his methods. I have never said that "we" are not causing it. What I have said is that thee is not enough proof to say "we" are causing it but that something is definately happening and that ALL factors should be considered and incorporated into the worldwide mentality of what a cleaner environment means to all of us. I think I have been extrtemely open-minded and have greatly researched the topic. Too often, we try to put someone's position on a topic as "for or against" my position. As a scientist, you need to take ALL positions as possible until the Hypotheses has been properly tested. It has not in any arena to date (other than what is real and logical. Emissions are bad and contain poisons that are bad for us and the planet). It is an absolute atrocity that energy companies continue to buy up fledgling companies with alternate energy solutions and kill/bury the technology! We can build batteries that drive microsystems for years without replacement, but efficiently drive our macro-technology? Nope! WHY? "The technology doesn't exist" crapola doesn't cut it for me! It doesn't exist because the investment to make it happen has not been made. Screw the EPA (I almost became a Special Agent for them). They are a true puppet organization that blows as the administration does. Currently, there is an emphasis on civil enforcemant and compliance on the company itself under the Republitards. Under the Demonrats, it is usually Criminal enforcement directed at the individuals responsible for how the company operates. Realistically, it should be both strategies applied simultaneously. What is sad, is that when Nixon (yes, that is right... NIXON ) created the EPA, he gave the Criminal Investigators the broadest investigative authority available, only matched by ICE, FBI, and the Marshall Service. All that potential in an arena that is driven almost purely by politics! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 And my point is not to defend a position. THAT is BAD science. And that is why I discredit the efforts of Gore and his methods. I have never said that "we" are not causing it. What I have said is that thee is not enough proof to say "we" are causing it but that something is definately happening and that ALL factors should be considered and incorporated into the worldwide mentality of what a cleaner environment means to all of us. I think I have been extrtemely open-minded and have greatly researched the topic. Too often, we try to put someone's position on a topic as "for or against" my position. As a scientist, you need to take ALL positions as possible until the Hypotheses has been properly tested. It has not in any arena to date (other than what is real and logical. Emissions are bad and contain poisons that are bad for us and the planet). It is an absolute atrocity that energy companies continue to buy up fledgling companies with alternate energy solutions and kill/bury the technology! We can build batteries that drive microsystems for years without replacement, but efficiently drive our macro-technology? Nope! WHY? "The technology doesn't exist" crapola doesn't cut it for me! It doesn't exist because the investment to make it happen has not been made. Screw the EPA (I almost became a Special Agent for them). They are a true puppet organization that blows as the administration does. Currently, there is an emphasis on civil enforcemant and compliance on the company itself under the Republitards. Under the Demonrats, it is usually Criminal enforcement directed at the individuals responsible for how the company operates. Realistically, it should be both strategies applied simultaneously. What is sad, is that when Nixon (yes, that is right... NIXON ) created the EPA, he gave the Criminal Investigators the broadest investigative authority available, only matched by ICE, FBI, and the Marshall Service. All that potential in an arena that is driven almost purely by politics! Good posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.