Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

tie · Mar 6, 2007, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Who would you bet is on a bike more often? In pretty good shape Bush, or Moore-and Moore bloated-every-day eGore? Get real. But again, typical hypocrisy.

I don't think either one of them bikes anywhere. I assume they both take limos or SUVs, private jets or Air Force 1, etc. Neither one is a good role model for conservation. Typical hypocrisy of politicians? I guess so.

tie · Mar 6, 2007, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So in other words, you can't counter the article. Lame.

Your AIDS quip was pathetic, your article was fine.

Macrobat · Mar 7, 2007, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by tie

So that means it gets better gas mileage? Good to know, thanks!

Nope, but - unlike Gore - he carries a full staff, the White House press corps, a Secret Service contigent, etc., as well.

In other words, AF1 is populated within 20 people of a regular civilian airliner when it flies.

In short, your dig is lame and fell flat on its face.

Buckaroo · Mar 7, 2007, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by tie

I don't think either one of them bikes anywhere. I assume they both take limos or SUVs, private jets or Air Force 1, etc. Neither one is a good role model for conservation. Typical hypocrisy of politicians? I guess so.

I believe I've seen Bush in many pictures on Bicycles, and I don't think Al Gore can ride a bike anymore.

As far as AF1, I would only expect the Commander in Chief of this country to fly in a plane that represents this country along with all the secure communications required to run in event of war.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 7, 2007, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by tie

I don't think either one of them bikes anywhere.

Bush bikes quite often. I believe I once heard him state that he does so virtually every day if time permits. He's certainly in the best physical shape as any president we've had in a long time.

Neither one is a good role model for conservation.

Actually, it would seem Bush is quite a good role model in how he maintains his private residence. And he's not the loudmouth running around preaching at everyone everyone else not to drive SUVs and making tons of money selling enviro-snake oil. This fact of course flies in the face of the enviro-weenie crowd that couldn't really give a good squat about ACTUAL conservation or practicing any of the nonsense they spout- because it's really all about petty politics, not the environment.

tie · Mar 8, 2007, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Bush bikes quite often. I believe I once heard him state that he does so virtually every day if time permits. He's certainly in the best physical shape as any president we've had in a long time.

Actually, it would seem Bush is quite a good role model in how he maintains his private residence. And he's not the loudmouth running around preaching at everyone everyone else not to drive SUVs and making tons of money selling enviro-snake oil. This fact of course flies in the face of the enviro-weenie crowd that couldn't really give a good squat about ACTUAL conservation or practicing any of the nonsense they spout- because it's really all about petty politics, not the environment.

You both missed my point. When I said "anywhere," I meant to go somewhere, not for exercise. Biking for exercise doesn't prevent any carbon emissions and is irrelevant.

It's Bush's job to be a "loudmouth" about problems like this, and he's a failure for ignoring it. "Enviro-weenie", "petty politics," "loudmouth" -- "nonsense" indeed.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 8, 2007, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by tie

You both missed my point. When I said "anywhere," I meant to go somewhere, not for exercise. Biking for exercise doesn't prevent any carbon emissions and is irrelevant.

This is the kind of hoop-jumping bullcrap you have to resort to, only to prove my point! Simply amazing. Rather than address what Bush actually does do, you make up a bullcrap dodge about riding bikes, aren't even correct about the fact that Bush rides one, then you declare your own sidetrack irrelevant! (of course, it was irrelevant when you brought it up as a dodge in the first place!)

Once again, all this is about to you is POLITICS, not anything to do with the environment or who does what to conserve anything.

Buckaroo · Mar 8, 2007, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by tie

It's Bush's job to be a "loudmouth" about problems like this, and he's a failure for ignoring it. "Enviro-weenie", "petty politics," "loudmouth" -- "nonsense" indeed.

You completely miss the point. There is no problem. It's not up to him to pitch Gore scam talk.

Mankind has less than 1% affect on global warming.

tie · 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

This is the kind of hoop-jumping bullcrap you have to resort to, only to prove my point! Simply amazing. Rather than address what Bush actually does do, you make up a bullcrap dodge about riding bikes, aren't even correct about the fact that Bush rides one, then you declare your own sidetrack irrelevant! (of course, it was irrelevant when you brought it up as a dodge in the first place!)

Once again, all this is about to you is POLITICS, not anything to do with the environment or who does what to conserve anything.

What!? You are the one who responded saying Bush rode his bike every day, not me!

At least my post was (at least peripherally

) related to global warming. You respond by telling me that Bush gets more exercise. Yes, that's irrelevant.

tie · 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

You completely miss the point. There is no problem. It's not up to him to pitch Gore scam talk.

Mankind has less than 1% affect on global warming.

Less than 1% of scientists think that mankind has less than 1% effect on global warming.

Hey, I'm just as good at making up statistics as you are! (And I can spell "effect"

.)

Let's go bomb Iraq!

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 8, 2007, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by tie

What!? You are the one who responded saying Bush rode his bike every day, not me!

Stop acting so stupid, or maybe it's not an act?

You started with this nugget of idiocy:
"I hear he flies around in a personal jet -- shouldn't he have to bicycle?"
Yeah, that's really logical and relevant, Einstein, since everyone bikes as an alternative to flying!

Then when you continue your stupid tangent (which is itself a smokescreen for the fact that you can't address the actual subject of Bush being better at conserving that eGore) you're wrong about Bush using a bike. Get off it, it's just a dumb smokescreen and you couldn't even keep up with it. But as I said, you only care about making dumb political jabs, not anything to do with conservation or the environment.

Buckaroo · Mar 9, 2007, 09:22 PM

China is opening up a new coal burning plant ever 7 to 10 days. China has NO restriction based on the Kyoto treaty.

China's coal burning plants have NO scubbers. China has over 2000 Coal plants either under construction or planned.

There is NOTHING we can do to offset or reduce the global warming scam.

This dosen't even take into account the pollution coming out of India.

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 9, 2007, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

China is opening up a new coal burning plant ever 7 to 10 days. China has NO restriction based on the Kyoto treaty.

China's coal burning plants have NO scubbers. China has over 2000 Coal plants either under construction or planned.

There is NOTHING we can do to offset or reduce the global warming scam.

This dosen't even take into account the pollution coming out of India.

...and yet, both those countries have over three times the population of the US. So, it makes sense that they should be producing more emissions, right?

North America still has by far and away the highest per capita emissions on the planet. Stop trying to ignore it.

greg

Buckaroo · Mar 9, 2007, 09:28 PM

I lost track. What are the emissions? Carbon Dioxide or Carbon Monoxide?

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 9, 2007, 11:06 PM

Since you specifically mentioned the "global warming scam," one would logically be referencing the dominant greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

But carbon monoxide's not terribly great for people either, I hear.

greg

stupendousman · Mar 9, 2007, 11:23 PM

What does any of this have anything to do with Al Gore being 100% phony?

Buckaroo · Mar 9, 2007, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Since you specifically mentioned the "global warming scam," one would logically be referencing the dominant greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

But carbon monoxide's not terribly great for people either, I hear.

greg

Oh my gosh, this is even a bigger scam than I realized. We exhale Carbon Dioxide. Plants absorb Carbon Dioxide.

This is soooo rediculous.

The average human being emits 900gm of CO2 per day. Taking the world population as 6 billion this equates to .9/1000x6x365=2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year

Buckaroo · Mar 9, 2007, 11:36 PM

For some reason, I was thinking that the issue was Carbon Monoxide, which I believe may have something to do with SMOG.

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 10, 2007, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

The average human being emits 900gm of CO2 per day. Taking the world population as 6 billion this equates to .9/1000x6x365=2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year

So? What does this even mean? What's your point? You can do math? Is 2 billion tonnes of CO2 normal? Harmful? Getting more harmful because we're cutting down the Amazon? Getting less harmful because trees are growing farther north as the planet warms?

Numbers without context are useless.

For some reason, I was thinking that the issue was Carbon Monoxide, which I believe may have something to do with SMOG.

Wait, are you talking about global warming – the subject of this thread, and your posts – or pollution? Photochemical smog does have some global warming implications, but it's primarily a pollution issue (carbon monoxide speeds up nitric oxide oxidation or ozone formation, of course).

Get your issues straight. You were talking about Kyoto and global warming.

greg