[tie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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

[stupendousman]

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

[Buckaroo]

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]

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

[ShortcutToMoncton]

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

[Buckaroo]

Kyoto does NOTHING to stop the global warming scam. It only destroys the US economy.

That is it.

[OldManMac]

You guys haven't settled this yet?

[besson3c]

Do you guys ever get tired of psychoanalyzing the personalities of people? None of us know whether Gore or anybody else is moral and sincere, this applies to any politician, or anybody in a position of power for that matter.

I'm sick of so much attention being put into this sort of character analysis. How about we focus on what people say, the merits of what they are saying, and in the case of politicians, their political capability, intellect, etc.?

Sure, making moral and ethical decisions is important, but we are basically rolling the dice with anybody in power. If we are going to psychoanalyze this sort of crap, maybe we should focus on stuff that actually matters - whether people are affected, whether it affects the ability of the person being analyzed to do their jobs capably, etc.?

I don't care about who people sleep with, whether they smoke cigarettes, whether they did drugs in the past, what church they go to (so long as they separate their religious beliefs from their job), the status of their marriage, how they dress, how phony they are, how hypocritical they are, etc. IT DOES NOT MATTER!! If they can do their job and do it well (and ethically), great... if they can't, they can't. It's as simple as that.

Going back to Gore, how about we just focus on what he is saying?

[Macrobat]

Scientists to AlGore, "Calm down."

Impeccable "Leftie" source, too:

The New York Times > Log In

The real "inconvenient truth" is simply that it’s not that he’s hysterical, it’s that he’s really hysterical. And by “really hysterical” I mean “totally wrong.”

He is guilty of present ONLY the direst predictions, based on the most flawed computer models, simply to sensationalize and sell movie tickets.

[Buckaroo]

Please let this thread fade. It's been discussed enough for now. I don't think it needs to be locked, but try going to this thread.

I believe it is more relavent at this time:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...rming-swindle/

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Kyoto does NOTHING to stop the global warming scam. It only destroys the US economy.

That is it.

Is this what your mullah told you? The science says otherwise.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Scientists to AlGore, "Calm down."

Impeccable "Leftie" source, too:

The New York Times > Log In

The money quote:

it’s not that he’s hysterical, it’s that he’s really hysterical. And by “really hysterical” I mean “totally wrong.”

That quote doesn't appear anywhere in the article referenced. In fact that entire article admits that it's just several scientists nitpicking. The consensus portrayed in the article, and the concluding quote, all state that in terms of the "big picture" (that humans are causing global warming and it's gonna f*ck us over), Gore got it right.

Learn to f*cking read the sh*t you post people.

[Macrobat]

I read it fine. The NYT bent over backwards to protect Gore and the scientists ALL said that he was overly hysterical and exagerated the risks immensely. Here's a hint: Get over yourself.

Gore hysterically screams about a 20-foot rise in sea levels, when the most pessimistic estimates place it at a mere 23 inches over a century. In short, Gore's a friggin liar - and even his "own side" knows it.

It's another case of "wrong but right." Which seems to be plenty good enough for the Left, huh?

LMFAO

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I read it fine.

You presented a "quote" that's nowhere to be found in the article.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Gore hysterically screams about a 20-foot rise in sea levels, when the most pessimistic estimates place it at a mere 23 inches over a century. In short, Gore's a friggin liar - and even his "own side" knows it.

It's another case of "wrong but right." Which seems to be plenty good enough for the Left, huh?

LMFAO

It may very well be that Gore's estimates for sea levels might be too high. That has nothing to do with the idea that Global Warming is man made and is happening. It simply means that he overestimated the effects of it in that area. So you're essentially arguing that because sea levels will rise 20 feet not within this century, but later, we should do nothing to prevent that? It may very well be a good thing that Gore's exaggerating the effects (though keep in mind he provided no time frame) to get lazy f*cks to do something about it. Again, the point is that these technicalities have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of man-made global warming.

[Macrobat]

Tell ya what. Go back and read the thread title again. This thread is about whether Al Gore is a shill or not - in case you didn't understand that.

And no, it's NOT a "good thing" that the Gore-on is exaggerating. See, exagerration makes it FAR easier to ignore, or refute anything he says, which is entirely the point the scientists are attempting to make, and the very same thing that flew 20FEET!!!!! over your head.

You're correct about the quote, I had originally intended to use the "He said “not every single adviser” agreed with him on every point, “but we do agree on the fundamentals” — that warming is real and caused by humans.," but forgot to change my post. So shoot me - it was "wrong, but accurate," something you seem to have no problem granting Gore credit for - huh?

What the scientists are saying is that the ONLY thing they agree with Gore on is their contention that humans are causing GW, but Gore's actions HURT more than help their position.

His very exaggeration makes it easier to ridicule and deride the position, if you cannot see that, perhaps you need glasses?

[Macrobat]

Yet another moronic thing that brings derision upon the GW crowd:

Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek - Yahoo! News

Do you seriously not see why?

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming,'' Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.''

Does empirical evidence fail to support global warming? Ah well, no problem: Because, you see, global warming also has the insidious attribute of being too unpredictable to actually ever be proven via normal scientific processes like prediction and confirmation.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

His very exaggeration makes it easier to ridicule and deride the position, if you cannot see that, perhaps you need glasses?

Sure, some of the things Gore says make him an easy target for ridicule. I do not support those things. I support the other things Gore talks about, like the idea that Global Warming is happening, that it's man-made, and that we need to do everything within our power to stop it.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Yet another moronic thing that brings derision upon the GW crowd:

Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek - Yahoo! News

Do you seriously not see why?

Does empirical evidence fail to support global warming? Ah well, no problem: Because, you see, global warming also has the insidious attribute of being too unpredictable to actually ever be proven via normal scientific processes like prediction and confirmation.

This is silly. This point of yours seems similar to a frequent criticism that I hear of global warming. People will say: "You can't even predict tomorrow's weather! How can you predict the weather 100 years from now??"

The fact is, is that it's much easier to predict the weather 100 years from now, than it is to predict tomorrow's weather. The science of chaotic systems works "over the long run", and people who take that to mean "tomorrow" are thoroughly mistaken. Take a trivial example like gambling (perhaps not the best analogy but work with me), I can't predict with certainty whether you're going to win the next round, but I can tell you that if you continue playing that game you will lose money because the odds are not in your favor.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

His very exaggeration makes it easier to ridicule and deride the position, if you cannot see that, perhaps you need glasses?

We all exaggerate our positions at times, especially when we feel we need to make a point, and I'm sure you're guilty of that as well. That doesn't mean we don't have some valid points, and that they may be worth at least investigating, instead of the easier, and more ego sustaining, route of ridiculing those that that it's easier to write off.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

The fact is, is that it's much easier to predict the weather 100 years from now, than it is to predict tomorrow's weather.

LOL! Well of course it is! Because in 100 years you won't be around to admit your predictions were wrong.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It's another case of "wrong but right." Which seems to be plenty good enough for the Left, huh?

Why are you making up quotes???

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

LOL! Well of course it is! Because in 100 years you won't be around to admit your predictions were wrong.

I can't predict the weather two weeks from now, but I bet it will be warmer in the summer than in the winter. And I'm not even a climate scientist!

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

LOL! Well of course it is! Because in 100 years you won't be around to admit your predictions were wrong.

No. Chaotic systems come in all shapes and sizes. Some are small, like the gambling example, while others are large, like Earth's environment. Depending on the scale of these things, it takes a different amount of time to see whether your theory will correctly predict the future. It's as simple as that. Edit: tie gave another good example above this post.

The theory of global warming, I profess, is scientific, logical, and sound in its reasoning. Therefore, unless things drastically change (like a meteor crashes into the Earth), it will predict what our future will likely be. Earth's environment changes, but at a much slower and less predictable rate, with sound science and reasoning however, we can make a simple statement like: "Temperature will go up." No one is saying this is a certainty, but given the evidence, like evolution, we're pretty sure of it. Therefore it would be a fool's act not to take preventative measures to stop it, especially since the very nature of the situation prevents us from waiting until we have that certainty. If we were to do that, we know that we would be unable to do anything about it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

So bugger off if all you're willing to do is stand at the sidelines and criticize our attempts to save the planet.

Let's all check back in 100 years to see if the Legion of Super Weenies saaaaaaaaaaaaaved the planet or not.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Let's all check back in 100 years to see if the Legion of Super Weenies saaaaaaaaaaaaaved the planet or not.

I edited my post to remove that in the hopes of preventing a child-like response from you. Looks like I was too late.

Don't bother actually responding to the meat of what I said. I wouldn't expect that of you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Dude, I said 100 years, not 100 seconds. You're early.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Dude, I said 100 years, not 100 seconds. You're early.

Ah ok. So we're agreed then? You'll shut up until that time comes?

BTW, on a slightly different tangent, how old are you, really?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Ah ok. So we're agreed then? You'll shut up until that time comes?

If you'll shut your enviro-religious-Bible thumping until then, absolutely. Agreed?

BTW, on a slightly different tangent, how old are you, really?

Old enough to be weary of anyone with delusions of grandeur bloated enough to think that whatever fad they've taken up is really "saaaaaaaaaaaving the planet."

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If you'll shut your enviro-religious-Bible thumping until then, absolutely. Agreed?

You don't seem to get it. One side has the evidence and the cause to talk, the other side doesn't. Guess which side you're on? No actually, don't guess, that was a rhetorical question (you learned what those are, right?), I'd rather not respond to another juvenile retort.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Old enough to be weary of anyone with delusions of grandeur bloated enough to think that whatever fad they've taken up is really "saaaaaaaaaaaving the planet."

Fifteen it is then.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

You don't seem to get it. One side has the evidence and the cause to talk, the other side doesn't. Guess which side you're on? No actually, don't guess, I'd rather not respond to another juvenile retort.

*sigh* So much for 100 years of relief from the pretentious whine of self-centered, delusional, enviro-religious blathering.

Fifteen it is then.

No, but sometimes I think it would be great to go back.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

*sigh* So much for 100 years of relief from the pretentious whine of

Oh boy... here we go...

self-centered,

This is about saving the planet.

delusional,

Never mind the mountain of evidence.

enviro-religious blathering.

Ignore the science.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

This is about saving the planet.

LOL! Yeah, sure, nothing self-centered and delusional about casting yourself in the self-apointed god role of "saaaaaaaaaving the planet." No sir, no rampant megalomania in that at all!

Never mind the mountain of evidence.

There were weenies like you that said the same thing about racial eugenics and any number of other horrible ideas backed up by crap, agenda-driven "science". Get over yourself, your cult isn't the first to latch on to some fire and brimstone insanity that's really about enforcing a political ideology, claimed a total consensus, tried to shut down all opposition, and tried to ram your ideology down everyone else's throat claiming you were "saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaving the world."

So once again, go enjoy your global warming cult, but don't expect me to take your delusional "saaaaaaaaaaaving the planet" nonsense seriously.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

LOL! Yeah, sure, nothing self-centered and delusional about casting yourself in the self-apointed god role of "saaaaaaaaaving the planet." No sir, no rampant megalomania in that at all!

No single individual can save the planet on their own, it takes the efforts of many to accomplish this.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

but don't expect me to take your delusional "saaaaaaaaaaaving the planet" nonsense seriously.

You're free to ignore reality, evidence and science all you like. But so far, the fact is that you have not addressed a single piece of evidence raised in this thread. In each and every post you have attacked the messenger, not the message, all the while ignoring the arguments presented against you. I don't expect someone as childish as yourself to take anything seriously, but you should realize that no one, reading what you've written here, will take you seriously.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why are you making up quotes???

I'm not - I apologize if you haven't been following the Duke Lacrosse case and therefore do not get the reference.

Why do you lie about what I did?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

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

I wouldn't care how much Gore was paying. As long as he practiced what he preached. It doesn't matter the steps he goes to make the place use LESS than it did before. It's still unnecessary usage.

[Buckaroo]

Looks like Gore is going to get a little grilling.

GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP
Sun Mar 18 2007 20:23:00 ET

**Exclusive**

Temperatures are predicted to reach a high of only 43-degrees on Wednesday in Washington, but look for high-heat to come out of Al Gore's scheduled appearances on The Hill!


DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2007�