Interesting article regarding Gore's movie. Has lots of facts in it.

Central Gore Hypothesis Wrong

OU I'd be interested to get your feedback on the facts in this article.

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown

the CATO institute isn't exactly a credible source here. Major funding by Exxon Mobile. It's kind of hard to convince somebody of something when his pocketbook is directly tied to the other side. Tobacco company money too. Jesus Micheal Moore would have more credibility than these guys.

Machiavelli Wrote:Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown

the CATO institute isn't exactly a credible source here. Major funding by Exxon Mobile. It's kind of hard to convince somebody of something when his pocketbook is directly tied to the other side. Tobacco company money too. Jesus Micheal Moore would have more credibility than these guys.

And yet you call others to task for not seeing An Inconvenient Truth because of the source of it? Explain to me how Al Gore is so much more credible than the Cato Institute on this subject.

Try this, refute what's in the article instead of trying to attack where it's printed. Refute the facts, and there are numerous ones in there. And they aren't facts that he makes up. He's citing the UN in the article as their findings disagreeing with Gore. Science magazine as well. Or is the UN now in the pocket of big oil?

Refute the facts. Refute the argument being made.

Machiavelli Wrote:the CATO institute isn't exactly a credible source here.

lmfao Silly liberal, you're own hatred gets in your way of logic. Al Gore IS a credible source? Let's compare the two individuals, shall we?

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D---A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology, University of Chicago Ph.D. in ecological climatology , University of Wisconsin at Madison. Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, and Program Chair for the Committee on Applied Meterology of the American Meterological Society.

Albert A. Gore Jr.----After finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and worked hard in his government courses and graduated *** laude from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government.


.......and you liberals believe Gore.



lmfao lmfao lmfao


{Edit} Had to add Ph.D behind his name. He earned it. ;-)

Ninerfan1 Wrote:And yet you call others to task for not seeing An Inconvenient Truth because of the source of it? Explain to me how Al Gore is so much more credible than the Cato Institute on this subject.

Try this, refute what's in the article instead of trying to attack where it's printed. Refute the facts, and there are numerous ones in there. And they aren't facts that he makes up. He's citing the UN in the article as their findings disagreeing with Gore. Science magazine as well. Or is the UN now in the pocket of big oil?

Refute the facts. Refute the argument being made.

Don't you know that to a liberal, liberalism trumps all logic?

Geez, come on Niner. You know better. lmfao

True. It's entirely possible Mach didn't even read the article.

I'll just pull out the first part.

[quote]The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland

Ninerfan1 Wrote:So Gore says one thing, the UN says another. Interesting.

What do you expect from a group that demands Bush follow the ISG, but when he says he wants to send more troops, the same damn thing the ISG recommends, they complain. lmfao

Machiavelli Wrote:It's kind of hard to convince somebody of something when his pocketbook is directly tied to the other side.

Why don't you check out who funds the grants for the GW advocates, and how the Earth Sciences Directorate at NASA chooses to generate "public awareness" and funding.

Exteremly busy today...........

Don't have much time. I did read the article and when I got to the end of it I saw the CATO Institute. I know the CATO institute is tied to big oil.

Have you guys watched an Inconvient Truth yet???????

So spare the lectures til you at least have seen the film.

I'll try to post tonight.

Machiavelli Wrote:Have you guys watched an Inconvient Truth yet???????

I don't plan on it. He's nothing but a windbag preaching to all of us "lowly creatures" while he goes off gallivanting across the globe in private jets.

I did notice his carbon footprint has become significantly enlarged. He trying to compete with Michael Moore or sumpin?

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:Have you guys watched an Inconvient Truth yet???????

I don't plan on it. He's nothing but a windbag preaching to all of us "lowly creatures" while he goes off gallivanting across the globe in private jets.

I did notice his carbon footprint has become significantly enlarged. He trying to compete with Michael Moore or sumpin?

Hey, leave Michael Moore out of this! ;-)

I haven't seen Inconvenient Truth either yet. I would guess it would be along the lines of a Michael Moore documentary, but less amusing. I like poking fun at Bush, and I think global warming may be real and should be taken seriously. But why does Gore think he's a climatologist? Is he quoting climatologists in the movie? I guess I'll have to see the movie.

Machiavelli Wrote:Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown

the CATO institute isn't exactly a credible source here. Major funding by Exxon Mobile. It's kind of hard to convince somebody of something when his pocketbook is directly tied to the other side.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_o...e_change_1

Quote:UNITED NATIONS - To head off the worst of climate change, governments must pour tens of billions of dollars more than they are into clean-energy research and enforce sharp rollbacks in fossil-fuel emissions, an expert scientific panel reported to the United Nations on Tuesday

You were saying?

DrTorch Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown

the CATO institute isn't exactly a credible source here. Major funding by Exxon Mobile. It's kind of hard to convince somebody of something when his pocketbook is directly tied to the other side.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_o...e_change_1

Quote:UNITED NATIONS - To head off the worst of climate change, governments must pour tens of billions of dollars more than they are into clean-energy research and enforce sharp rollbacks in fossil-fuel emissions, an expert scientific panel reported to the United Nations on Tuesday

You were saying?

Pouring tens of billions worldwide into energy research is an efficient investment though, from the standpoint of the United States. The case for pouring money into oil being an efficient use of investment resources is not as convincing.

I really would like someone to explain to me why making massive investments in green technology is a bad thing.

OUGwave Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown

the CATO institute isn't exactly a credible source here. Major funding by Exxon Mobile. It's kind of hard to convince somebody of something when his pocketbook is directly tied to the other side.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_o...e_change_1

Quote:UNITED NATIONS - To head off the worst of climate change, governments must pour tens of billions of dollars more than they are into clean-energy research and enforce sharp rollbacks in fossil-fuel emissions, an expert scientific panel reported to the United Nations on Tuesday

You were saying?

Pouring tens of billions worldwide into energy research is an efficient investment though, from the standpoint of the United States. The case for pouring money into oil being an efficient use of investment resources is not as convincing.

I really would like someone to explain to me why making massive investments in green technology is a bad thing.

1. It's immoral
http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=35549

2. Unintended consequences. Who says that your preferred "green technology" isn't harmful? Maybe even more harmful than what you replaced. See my thread on compact fluorescent lights and Hg. You want other examples? See DDT, nuclear power, the damming of the Colorado River (and flood prevention), etc.

3. The point is that those crying about GW are every bit as interested in a fat paycheck as those who are supported by oil money. Mach was claiming that you couldn't trust people who have a monetary interest. So, I guess both sides should be dismissed.

NIU007 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:Have you guys watched an Inconvient Truth yet???????

I don't plan on it. He's nothing but a windbag preaching to all of us "lowly creatures" while he goes off gallivanting across the globe in private jets.

I did notice his carbon footprint has become significantly enlarged. He trying to compete with Michael Moore or sumpin?

Hey, leave Michael Moore out of this! ;-)

I haven't seen Inconvenient Truth either yet. I would guess it would be along the lines of a Michael Moore documentary, but less amusing. I like poking fun at Bush, and I think global warming may be real and should be taken seriously. But why does Gore think he's a climatologist? Is he quoting climatologists in the movie? I guess I'll have to see the movie.

Gore is not a climatologist. But he has been studying the issue for, oh about 30 years so he's followed the evidence and trends in the research. I'd say, globally, he probably knows more about the issue than anyone who ISN'T a climatologist. But its not like he's just rambling in the film. He lays out a very cogent, methodical case for the occurrence of global warming and the anthropogenic nature of it.

The movie is not a Michael Moore style polemic. I have know idea why people who haven't seen it would suggest that it is.... maybe because it has political *implications*, but the movie itself is not political. He doesn't take cheap shots at the President, doesn't really ridicule anyone. The style of the movie is more like a lecture or a presentation. A very, very effective power point presentation. And it is not boring... he puts forth the logic and supporting evidence in a very entertaining way. And he asks thought-provoking questions.

The only reason NOT to go see the movie is if you are scared of having your mind changed.

Regarding his carbon footprint, Al Gore's family uses 100% green energy sources for their electric utilities. He also invests in carbon offsets ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset ) to reduce what is left of his carbon footprint to a net of zero.

DrTorch Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown

the CATO institute isn't exactly a credible source here. Major funding by Exxon Mobile. It's kind of hard to convince somebody of something when his pocketbook is directly tied to the other side.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_o...e_change_1

Quote:UNITED NATIONS - To head off the worst of climate change, governments must pour tens of billions of dollars more than they are into clean-energy research and enforce sharp rollbacks in fossil-fuel emissions, an expert scientific panel reported to the United Nations on Tuesday

You were saying?

Pouring tens of billions worldwide into energy research is an efficient investment though, from the standpoint of the United States. The case for pouring money into oil being an efficient use of investment resources is not as convincing.

I really would like someone to explain to me why making massive investments in green technology is a bad thing.

1. It's immoral
http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=35549

Please. We make these trade-offs every day. The fact that there are trade-offs in the government's economic policies is an inescapable fact. Under that standard, every government policy decision regarding the economy or resources is immoral.

This is not an argument.

Quote:2. Unintended consequences. Who says that your preferred "green technology" isn't harmful? Maybe even more harmful than what you replaced. See my thread on compact fluorescent lights and Hg. You want other examples? See DDT, nuclear power, the damming of the Colorado River (and flood prevention), etc.

Explain to me the specific harms of renewable energy sources and we'll compare. It is not enough to say "there could be problems with solar power, we just don't know them yet"... because we KNOW the problems with carbon based electricity. Hell, the world knows the problems with nuclear waste storage but is moving back to nuclear power anyway because its still a much better alternative to oil. You can't just cast doubt on the perfection of other sources -- you have to argue that oil, coal, and natural gas are BETTER. Good luck. Science and economic theory aren't on your side.

Quote:3. The point is that those crying about GW are every bit as interested in a fat paycheck as those who are supported by oil money. Mach was claiming that you couldn't trust people who have a monetary interest. So, I guess both sides should be dismissed.

That would be pretty convenient for you, but no. There are winners and losers with both, thats true. You can still draw distinctions based on which is better for society as a whole -- in terms of productivity, national security, and environmental sustainability. Sustainable, renewable, and energy efficient technologies win hands down. Look, people will make money if there's a cure for cancer too, just like people made money on asbestos installation -- that doesn't mean that we should look at a cure for cancer and compare it to asbestos and say -- "its a wash".

Ninerfan1 Wrote:If the libs really wanted to stop co2 emissions the could just stop breathing. I would be supportive of that kind of measure. lmfao

You possibly could've won $25 million from Richard Branson had you submitted this "solution" earlier..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/01/...te_wibble/

Quote:Dr Mark Steer (in the background of the photograph above, in which he is accompanied by his colleague Dr. Andrew Impey) explains: "If we merely cut out one breath in three, we could decrease the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year by a staggering 0.63 gigatonnes. That's the same effect as saving five million acres of land (an area the size of Wales) from deforestation."

As well as averting the mass suicide of the planet's entire human population, this also means heading to the gym is a no-no.

In their press statement, the researchers explain that "the average person exercising at the recommended level of 30 minutes five times a week could be adding as much as 1.3kg of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year".

your version would solve many more of the world problems however....

OUGwave Wrote:Gore is not a climatologist. But he has been studying the issue for, oh about 30 years so he's followed the evidence and trends in the research. I'd say, globally, he probably knows more about the issue than anyone who ISN'T a climatologist. But its not like he's just rambling in the film. He lays out a very cogent, methodical case for the occurrence of global warming and the anthropogenic nature of it.

The movie is not a Michael Moore style polemic. I have know idea why people who haven't seen it would suggest that it is.... maybe because it has political *implications*, but the movie itself is not political.

[quote]The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland

to add to the breathing point, Capitalism(what this is all really about) has been able to allow is for the world to increase its population by about 500% over the last century(my number may be off a little, thinking it went from 1 Billion to over 5?), of course that is a lot of

Quote:Regarding his carbon footprint, Al Gore's family uses 100% green energy sources for their electric utilities. He also invests in carbon offsets ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset ) to reduce what is left of his carbon footprint to a net of zero.

Yeah, nice little "program" he's established for himself.

http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350