[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Scientists have a very good explanation for why temperature follows CO2, not the other way around

Al Gore is funding them?

Originally Posted by itistoday 

so if you're going to claim the opposite, you'd better do better than, "No idea."

Yeah, I actually looked at the graph. Why don't you try it sometime?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

More CO2< more green plants

Already you're wrong there as I've shown above. There is more CO2 today, and fewer plants. CO2 is increasing, plants are decreasing. That's what happens when we have our way with nature.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Al Gore is funding them?

No he's not... they've been saying this since before he was ever aware of global warming. And you're avoiding the point. The point is that you're full of it and are spewing bullshit while ignoring the facts.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yeah, I actually looked at the graph. Why don't you try it sometime?

I'll take that as an "OK, you got me, I'm full of it."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Shootin' in the dark there Doofster?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet's atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years, a team of astronomers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Williams College, the University of Hawaii, Lowell Observatory and Cornell University announced in a press conference today at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's (AAS) Division for Planetary Sciences in Birmingham, AL.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

No he's not... they've been saying this since before he was ever aware of global warming. And you're avoiding the point. The point is that you're full of it and are spewing bullshit while ignoring the facts.

I'll take that as an "OK, you got me, I'm full of it."

Look dude, I can't help it if you can't read a graph. It's there in red and blue for all to see - CO2 follows temp.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wow... Your memory is short...

There ya go.

The correctness of the science has nothing to do with how many trees you have on your property. How many trees you have is also irrelevant to policy decisions (unless you are a much bigger landowner than I think ).

I understand your personal situation very well -- since you keep on bringing it up as if it is globally relevant. You drive an SUV, but it gets good mileage and you don't drive it often. You're a vegetarian, and you own property with trees on it. You love to hate extreme environmentalists, and you'll argue against them even if there aren't any around.

You repeatedly get in arguments about the science. And when it is obvious that you're losing, you ask the other guy if he's a vegetarian. In thread after thread. It doesn't matter! (in an argument about the science). Your trees don't matter!

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find - MIT News Office

Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet's atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years, a team of astronomers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Williams College, the University of Hawaii, Lowell Observatory and Cornell University announced in a press conference today at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's (AAS) Division for Planetary Sciences in Birmingham, AL.

I guess you didn't read past the first paragraph. Oops.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You repeatedly get in arguments about the science.

No. I'm all about the politics. Just because you think I'm talking about the science doesn't mean I am.

Now, humans generate CO2 simply by breathing. The population of the planet has tripled in the last century. When any of you lefties stop talking about sending AIDS drugs to Africa (or any other kind of aid to anywhere else) instead of just letting nature re-adjust the population I'll start thinking that you're serious about global warming.

Until then it's just a scare-mongering means to gain and maintain political control.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.

Oops! You didn't look into this one, either.

Greenhouse warming, in which gases created by human activity trap more solar heat in the atmosphere, is expected to increase temperatures on Earth by about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 50 to 100 years. By contrast, according to Willson, solar forcing—the sun's effect on long-term climate—might account for between 0.7 and 1.4 degrees of warming over the next 100 years, if sustained at the pace his observations suggest. The globe has already warmed by about one degree since 1880, scientists say.

"Solar forcing would provide only about one-fourth as much warming, if the solar trend persists over the same period," Willson said. "Solar forcing could be significant, but not dominant." (link)

You have low standards of research. (So as usual, I imagine you'll now tell me that you're a vegetarian. )

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You have low standards of research.

I'm starting to think that your memory doesn't continue from one paragraph to the next.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. I'm all about the politics. Just because you think I'm talking about the science doesn't mean I am.
...
Until then it's just a scare-mongering means to gain and maintain political control.

1. Doofy posts links to science stories.
2. Doofy is proven wrong.
3a. Doofy says he's a vegetarian.
3b. Doofy it's all a conspiracy theory, and he wasn't really talking about the science.
4. Repeat.

[itistoday]

Doofy, do you not read the very articles you post as your "evidence"? You really should, it makes the kiddies cry when you don't.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame | Germany | Europe | International News | News | Telegraph

From that article:

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

...

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

...

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

Oh, and uh, a "he said she said" article from a popular "telegraph.co.uk" website as your evidence? And one that in the end, doesn't actually say anything? Hah!

Originally Posted by Doofy

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find - MIT News Office

Did you not read the article? Here, let me do it for you:

Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."

Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes.

Since 1989, for example, the sun's position in Pluto's sky has changed by more than the corresponding change on the Earth that causes the difference between winter and spring. Pluto's atmospheric temperature varies between around minus 235 and minus 170 degrees Celsius, depending on the altitude above the surface. The main gas in Pluto's atmosphere is nitrogen, and Pluto has nitrogen ice on its surface that can evaporate into the atmosphere when it gets warmer, causing an increase in surface pressure. If the observed increase in the atmosphere also applies to the surface pressure--which is likely the case--this means that the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.

...

Pluto and Neptune's largest moon, Triton, are presently about the same distance from the sun, and each has a predominantly nitrogen atmosphere (with a surface pressure 100,000 times less than that on Earth), so one might expect similar processes to be occurring on these two bodies.

A 1997 occultation of a star by Triton revealed that its surface had warmed since the Voyager spacecraft first explored it in 1989. On Triton, "Voyager saw dark material rising up as much as 12 km above the surface, indicating some kind of eruptive activity," Elliot said. "There could be more massive activity on Pluto, since the changes observed in Pluto's atmosphere are much more severe. The change observed on Triton was subtle. Pluto's changes are not subtle."

...

"This is a very complex process, and we just don't know what is causing these effects" on Pluto's surface, Elliot said.

Anyways Doofy, all this bullshit about the Sun causing global warming is just that. Very few scientists support this theory, and it should be obvious why they don't give it much credence: the Sun has very little to do with why Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system, even though it's not the closest to the Sun.

Checkmate?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

2. Doofy is proven wrong.

Show me where. C'mon, show me the science.

All I can say is that your definition of "proven" is a little loose.

I liked it how you cut the paragraph about foreign aid. I guess any such measures don't fit in with your leftie viewpoint, eh?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Show me where.

So far I have demonstrated to our forum trotting readers that you:

1) Link to articles you do not read
2) Spout bullshit
3) Do not have any basic understanding of what global warming is and the arguments for it
4) Carry the delusional belief that you are a climatologist

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Anyways Doofy, all this bullshit about the Sun causing global warming is just that. Very few scientists support this theory

So, it's down to mob rule, not actual facts then?

Oh, and if you want me to go through every article supporting MMGW and highlight all the "could", "maybe" and "perhaps", then you'd best page the mods and tell 'em to get a larger hard drive.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

So far I have demonstrated to our forum trotting readers that you:

1) Link to articles you do not read

Nope. You've demonstrated that you can't reference any of those articles to anything else nor read them objectively.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

2) Spout bullshit

In your opinion.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

3) Do not have any basic understanding of what global warming is and the arguments for it

Oh, I'm fully aware. I just happen to disagree with the solution.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

4) Carry the delusional belief that you are a climatologist

Nope.

That's your idea of proving something, is it? Opinion disguised as fact? No wonder you believe the GW BS.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, it's down to mob rule, not actual facts then?

No Doofy. That's not what I said, I clearly explained the reason. Learn to read and comprehend what you read. Go back to that sentence and try again.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Oh, and if you want me to go through every article supporting MMGW and highlight all the "could", "maybe" and "perhaps", then you'd best page the mods and tell 'em to get a larger hard drive.

You've been losing this argument for several years Doofster. Every time you post your bullshit people call you on it, and you continue to do it just like you're doing it here. You don't respond to the logic and evidence that is presented your way, you just post garbage like this and never actually debate the facts with other facts. You make sh*t up in other words.

I think it's obvious to everyone here, other than you, that you are full of sh*t. So why do you bother with your failing tactics if you can't convince anyone with them?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's your idea of proving something, is it?

No, I was just telling you how I viewed you as a human being. Yes, that was my opinion. I have so far countered and shown every single statement of yours to be bullshit. I'm still waiting for you to respond to them—to the content of the facts in the posts that is, so far your "responses" haven't addressed that little bit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

No Doofy. That's not what I said, I clearly explained the reason.

No, that's exactly what you said, even if you're too stupid to realise it. And that's your entire argument - more scientists believe in MMGW than not. That's mob rule.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

You've been losing this argument for several years Doofster. Every time you post your bullshit people call you on it, and you continue to do it just like you're doing it here. You don't respond to the logic and evidence that is presented your way, you just post garbage like this and never actually debate the facts with other facts. You make sh*t up in other words.

I think it's obvious to everyone here, other than you, that you are full of sh*t. So why do you bother with your failing tactics if you can't convince anyone with them?

Oooo... Accuse the opposition of making **** up.

And then you wonder why I reckon there's political motives behind all this.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where on that graph (that one of your side posted as "evidence") the temp is actually following the CO2.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

No, I was just telling you how I viewed you as a human being. Yes, that was my opinion. I have so far countered and shown every single statement of yours to be bullshit.

You've shown nothing other than your inability to put two and two together.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I'm still waiting for you to respond to them—to the content of the facts in the posts that is, so far your "responses" haven't addressed that little bit.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how, on that graph, the temp is following CO2. And I asked first, so c'mon, do it.

Oh, you'll be waiting a long time for the responses you're requiring off me. I really can't be arsed to explain it all to you. You'll figure it all out one day.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, that's exactly what you said, even if you're too stupid to realise it. And that's your entire argument - more scientists believe in MMGW than not. That's mob rule.

I think we need a third party here... maybe I am advocating mob rule and am just too stupid to realize it. Or perhaps I should just take your word for it. Yes, that's what I've been saying these past few pages/threads/years. Mob rule rules!

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm still waiting for you to show me where on that graph (that one of your side posted as "evidence") the temp is actually following the CO2.

I already told you. CO2 traps heat, so the more you have the hotter it is. This is a chemical property of CO2. I then asked you to explain to me how that wasn't the case, and that CO2 follows temperature. Your response was: "No idea."

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oh, you'll be waiting a long time for the responses you're requiring off me. I really can't be arsed to explain it all to you. You'll figure it all out one day.

Originally Posted by itistoday

4) Carry the delusional belief that you are a climatologist

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I already told you. CO2 traps heat, so the more you have the hotter it is. This is a chemical property of CO2. I then asked you to explain to me how that wasn't the case, and that CO2 follows temperature. Your response was: "No idea."

FFS, look at the graph. It's blindingly obvious that CO2 levels are following the temperature. I don't give a toss what you think you know about localised chemistry - the graph says that on a global scale, CO2 is following temp. Now, I don't know what's causing the planet to react that way but it's pretty obvious that it's not reacting in a way which you think it would. It points to something other than CO2 levels creating the temperature changes - CO2 is an effect, not the cause.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

There's a link between my not being arsed and your claim that I think I'm a climatologist?

No wonder you can't figure it all out - you're not actually in possession of a properly functioning brain.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

FFS, look at the graph. It's blindingly obvious that CO2 levels are following the temperature. I don't give a toss what you think you know about localised chemistry - the graph says that on a global scale, CO2 is following temp. Now, I don't know what's causing the planet to react that way but it's pretty obvious that it's not reacting in a way which you think it would. It points to something other than CO2 levels creating the temperature changes - CO2 is an effect, not the cause.

Ah, I see what you're referring to. Yeah, it's certainly possible that something else is causing the temperature to increase first, but that doesn't mean, at all, that CO2 follows temperature. It probably just means that CO2, along with other natural factors, change the temperature, which makes perfect sense. However, you'll notice that the graph still does show a close link between temperature and CO2, that should be painfully obvious, and you should also realize that almost every bit of that graph shows a time before the industrial revolution. Notice how CO2, towards the end, went up first, and notice where it is today. Now, since the point of the graph is to simply show that there seems to be a strong link between CO2 and temperature, can't you put one and one together and see that an artificially inflated amount of CO2 will cause the temperature to go up? It will because that's what CO2 does as I said originally! See, this proves you really don't understand what climatologists are saying!

Originally Posted by Doofy

There's a link between my not being arsed and your claim that I think I'm a climatologist?

No, where have your reading comprehension skills gone? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if I was referring to the preposterous nature of this statement:

Originally Posted by Doofy

explain it all to you

When you are not a climatologist?

[spacefreak]

It's a shame that so many people have become warped to the point that they immediately dismiss any notion that the heating of the earth and solar system could be caused by a hotter sun.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

It's a shame that so many people have become warped to the point that they immediately dismiss any notion that the heating of the earth and solar system could be caused by a hotter sun.

Political Lounge rules say to leave the straw man at the door. No one's dismissing that possibility, there's just not enough compelling evidence that the observed temperature increase is caused primarily by the sun and not from greenhouse gases. The evidence points to man's production of CO2 and the destruction of environmental protections.

[tie]

spacefreak, I don't dismiss it. Read the links. Even that scientist is saying that only 20-40% of global warming could be accounted for from a warmer sun. Doofy didn't read his own links and has gotten a bit defensive.

[Doofy]

I read the links. I just figured that you guys were intelligent enough to digest what was being said.

Obviously I was wrong.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I read the links. I just figured that you guys were intelligent enough to digest what was being said.

Obviously I was wrong.

Obviously.

[Buckaroo]

I couldn't resist.

I thought this was so funny.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Doofy, this is really getting old. I've called you on the "hotter sun" theory at least a couple times in the past year or so, and already posted to scientific articles that estimated solar forcing to be a minority cause of climate change.

I've also pointed out, numerous times, the complete logical absurdity of saying "we don't know enough about our complex earth to say we're the cause of global warming" and then turning around and using data from another planet as "proof" that anthropogenic global warming is false.

Jebus. Pluto? Pluto?

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Doofy, this is really getting old. I've called you on the "hotter sun" theory at least a couple times in the past year or so, and already posted to scientific articles that estimated solar forcing to be a minority cause of climate change.

Yeah, I still don't buy it. And I'll continue to not buy it until such a time that I can't see any political influence on your side of the argument. And to achieve that, your side has got to starts banging on about population reduction and acting on it. In other words, you gotta start promoting [u]not[u] sending AIDS drugs to Africa.

I mean, you (plural) keep banging on about the industrial revolution but completely ignore the population explosion in the 20th century. How convenient that the cure for global warming is to ban everything that the left has always hated, no?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I was wondering how his electrical bill was so low!




I wonder how much Shrubby pays at his make believe ranch?

Dunh, dunh, duuuunh:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20070301c.html

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I mean, you (plural) keep banging on about the industrial revolution but completely ignore the population explosion in the 20th century. How convenient that the cure for global warming is to ban everything that the left has always hated, no?

I think when someone buys an iPod (RED) and saaaaaaves another AIDs victim, it comes with one of eGore's Carbon Offsets to make up for both the manufacture of yet another needless consumer item, plus the increase in saaaaaaaaaved lives.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Dunh, dunh, duuuunh:

Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's -- 03/01/2007

That's pretty funny. But also, quite typical.

Witness: the city-dwelling/endless consumer treadmill riding/ resource hogging lefty who loathes and constantly whines at those ignorant, backward "country folk" who live out in bumf**k and consume FAR less resources than he/she does... yet the lefty is the one who thinks he/she is saaaaaaaaaving the planet because he/she "caaaaares" more, and spouts more garbage 24/7 on the (carbon offset?) internet.

No wonder eGore is the high priest of this movement!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That's pretty funny. But also, quite typical.

Witness: the city-dwelling/endless consumer treadmill riding/ resource hogging lefty who loathes and constantly whines at those ignorant, backward "country folk" who live out in bumf**k and consume FAR less resources than he/she does... yet the lefty is the one who thinks he/she is saaaaaaaaaving the planet because he/she "caaaaares" more, and spouts more garbage 24/7 on the (carbon offset?) internet.

No wonder eGore is the high priest of this movement!

You really have to get material than that! Now you're telling us that only "lefties" purchase things they don't need and waste energy and resources, and it's just because they live in an urban environment? How desperate do you have to be to make an argument like that? If that wasn't pathetic, it'd be funny.

[tie]

Pretty pathetic, Crash. Are Bush's emissions offset? I hear he flies around in a personal jet -- shouldn't he have to bicycle?

And Doofy, I guess you still haven't read your own links? Take your time.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You really have to get material than that! Now you're telling us that only "lefties" purchase things they don't need and waste energy and resources,

There are indeed countless lefty twits that do just that, and are generally the ones screaming and sniding down their nose at everyone else, especially people that live in rural areas and that live 'simpler' lifestyles than they do. I didn't say they were the only ones who pollute (that's of course your strawman) merely pointing out that many of you are in fact, blatant, shameless hypocrites.

And lo and behold, when your high priest is shown to be a total hypocrite vs. your arch nemesis, you can't even make an argument for it other than to excuse Gore and keep on whining at Bush. As I said, it's typical.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

Pretty pathetic, Crash.

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

Are Bush's emissions offset?

So this joke is now the new lefty excuse for everything? Too funny!

shouldn't he have to bicycle?

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.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There are indeed countless lefty twits that do just that, and are generally the ones screaming and sniding down their nose at everyone else, especially people that live in rural areas and that live 'simpler' lifestyles than they do. I didn't say they were the only ones who pollute (that's of course your strawman) merely pointing out that many of you are in fact, blatant, shameless hypocrites.

And lo and behold, when your high priest is shown to be a total hypocrite vs. your arch nemesis, you can't even make an argument for it other than to excuse Gore and keep on whining at Bush. As I said, it's typical.

Your generalizations are unprovable, and as such, remain generalizations that you just happen to need to believe to support your own strawman.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Your generalizations are unprovable, and as such, remain generalizations that you just happen to need to believe to support your own strawman.

KarlG, I see a little light seeping into your thick skull. Welcome aboard my friend.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Your generalizations are unprovable, and as such, remain generalizations that you just happen to need to believe to support your own strawman.

I don't blame you for falling back on this, because you've got nothing to actually argue.

So no one can point to lefty morons with every excessive luxury known to man, riding around with "Save the Planet" bumperstickers and "I hate Bush" bullcrap plastered on their gas-hog SUVs? I'll show you 40-50 in any two mile radius here in Los Angeles, world capital of the lefty hypocrite moron twit.

So no one can point to Bush living more "eco-friendly" than loudmouth, blowhard, "buying his way out of actually conserving anything" eGore? Well guess what chump, someone just did. You've got no answer for that, because like so many things in all of this, it goes against your real agenda which is purely political, not really giving a good squat about the environment.

But relax, as I've said before, it's typical.

[OldManMac]

Of course you can point to that stuff. That's not the point, which obviously went over your head. There are plenty of people on the right who drive around in gas guzzling SUVs, and have every toy known to modern man, but your silly argument seems to be that, just because they don't have bumper stickers, saying "I hate Bush," or whatever, they aren't just as responsible. I hope you don't believe that it's only Democrats, or "lefties" who live in McMansions, and have no concern for the environment, because if you do, youre seriously delusional. It's interesting how you tell me that I have a political agenda in this argument, while you conveniently ignore that the "righties" bear just as much responsibility. Your whole point is politically based, as you conveniently want to pick on Al Gore, and a few people with bumper stickers, without any supporting evidence whatsoever that the vast majority of people in this country have a part in this, and that includes Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone else.

You need to relax, because it is typical on your side as well.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Of course you can point to that stuff. That's not the point, which obviously went over your head. There are plenty of people on the right who drive around in gas guzzling SUVs, and have every toy known to modern man,

Show me any of them yelling at everyone else to "saaaaaaave the environment" and yapping on and on about how everyone else is causing global warming. G'head.

Once again, the point of why it's hypocritical when it comes from the left flew over your head like a carbon offset for eGore's private jet.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Of course you can point to that stuff. That's not the point, which obviously went over your head. There are plenty of people on the right who drive around in gas guzzling SUVs, and have every toy known to modern man, but your silly argument seems to be that, just because they don't have bumper stickers, saying "I hate Bush," or whatever, they aren't just as responsible. I hope you don't believe that it's only Democrats, or "lefties" who live in McMansions, and have no concern for the environment, because if you do, youre seriously delusional. It's interesting how you tell me that I have a political agenda in this argument, while you conveniently ignore that the "righties" bear just as much responsibility. Your whole point is politically based, as you conveniently want to pick on Al Gore, and a few people with bumper stickers, without any supporting evidence whatsoever that the vast majority of people in this country have a part in this, and that includes Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone else.

You need to relax, because it is typical on your side as well.

Listen you twit, we're not forcing you into any particular behavior. Go organic. Build a windmill, ride a bike,
dig a ditch and store carbon, invest in carbon offsets, plant a tree farm, start GW cult, build a mansion, heat it with coal, or wind or solar but don't force your religion on us. The market will take care of that.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, I still don't buy it. And I'll continue to not buy it until such a time that I can't see any political influence on your side of the argument. And to achieve that, your side has got to starts banging on about population reduction and acting on it. In other words, you gotta start promoting [u]not[u] sending AIDS drugs to Africa.

I mean, you (plural) keep banging on about the industrial revolution but completely ignore the population explosion in the 20th century. How convenient that the cure for global warming is to ban everything that the left has always hated, no?

Now you're just letting the 'ol memory slip right out the door. I've pointed out numerous times in threads about the subject that I consider earth's population to be far too large. I've also pointed out that North American and developing-world obsession with measuring population growth as a function of economic growth is inherently unhealthy. I've also pointed out Paul Ehrlich's work on the population bomb at least a few times in these threads.

Unlike you however, I don't think denying Africa AIDS drugs is the way to achieve this. I'm not sure there are any moderns examples of poverty in third-world countries limited the number of children being born (anyone got any info?). There certainly are some contributing factors to lowering birth rates, though; education, and public confidence in a basic social safety net.

Either way, however inaccurate your comments on my political stance are, they still blatantly avoid the issue. Killing off millions of people by denying them help might be good for our emissions in the long run, according to you; but what's wrong with reducing first-world emissions in any case? Considering our yearly emissions are, oh, probably close to an order of magnitude more than some starving African with AIDS, do you really think denying her/him treatment should be the proper mathematical way to go about the problem?

greg

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by tie 

Pretty pathetic, Crash. Are Bush's emissions offset? I hear he flies around in a personal jet -- shouldn't he have to bicycle?

And Doofy, I guess you still haven't read your own links? Take your time.

Nope, he doesn't. Air Force One is public property, has an USAF tail number.

[Buckaroo]

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2007�


PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN’T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST
Tue Mar 06 2007 17:08:05 ET

The Most ‘Inconvenient Truth’: According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined

Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux “fried chicken” as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for “Best Documentary”—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the letter, PETA points out the following:

· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.

“The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.”

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Nope, he doesn't. Air Force One is public property, has an USAF tail number.

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