Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

[jonboy79]

This is an ideological belief. "make it benefit me" How about what "benefits most". True Liberal/progressive individuals have utilitarian views as in practicing that which benefits the most people. Conservatives want what benefits just themselves. It is better for the world and future generations to practice conservation which includes recycling, diminished carbon burn, renewable energies etc. Conservatives argue against this.




You said it not me. We put out far more recyling than trash at our house. Sure it is a bit more work but it is best for all so that is what we do. One shouldn't need a monetary incentive to do what's right.

Liberals are utopian, conservatives are realistic.
You shouldn't need a monetary incentive, but it's necessary to get good participation.
Plenty of people do in fact recycle, but you are foolign yourself if you dont think far more would do it if it hit their pocket... And the increase wouldn't come ONLY from conservatives....

[4G63]

The Right adamantly denies climate change to deny conservation efforts and support big oil. The Left should adamantly deny god to deny arguments against stem cell, gay marriage and promote science. That is a more apt analogy

but the Left doesn't and no one can explain why the right does.

Just about everybody I know doesn't have a problem with "conservation" measures but opposes government intervention in forcing laws on public/private enterprise to comply with arbitrary "guidelines". There is also growing problems with the ginormous Wind-turbines that are in Sweden and Norway.

I'd like to see a government tax rebate on solar and/or wind driven home energy-producing products.

[Rochardrik]

Reefer Madness is DEAD on for "An Inconvenient Truth".
In both instances, they cherry pick information to their own cause, while COMPLETELY OVERLOOKING, the vast ammounts of information that don't fit the agenda.
Similarly, the message that we might be doing bad to the Earth is good, but they so ridiculously exagerrate the point that it makes the whole thing seem campy.
Again, I bring up PETA. Most people agree with the overall message, but Ethical treatment of animals is probably not as effectively spread because the messenger has a screw loose. The extreme and blind nature of the messenger reduces the value of the message.
Manmade Climate Change is essentially disproved. At the very least, it is KNOWN that the Earth's climate has a cyclical nature, and the recent period is not abnormal in the slightest, and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere TRAIL temperature increases.
If you just dropped that whole shtick, and scare tactic, and presented the concepts of conservatism on par with reality, the message will hold more value.
Tell me you think it might be a little bit bad for the planet for us to keep burning fossill fuels. Don't MAKE UP a fairy tail about how burning fossill fuels will put NYC under water within 20 years.
The movie was straight up Propaghanda, and that was KNOWN at the time by the producers of the movie, It was INTENTIONAL misleading of the public for profit. It's despicable.

No, there is a MAJOR difference in the two. Hearst, and Dupont made Reefer madness and much other propoganda regarding marijuana so they could push their own products.. Nylon rope, and pulp from trees.. What is Gore selling? 1 movie.
I can't understand why only conservatives and republicans(same thing these days) find it so hard to believe that we just may be affecting climate change. And Galen is right. They use all the unproven stuff from their preachers as evidence that it is not happening, just like they believe that God created us some 6000 years ago, and that we are all inbred. Because the Bible says so.

[jonboy79]

No, there is a MAJOR difference in the two. Hearst, and Dupont made Reefer madness and much other propoganda regarding marijuana so they could push their own products.. Nylon rope, and pulp from trees.. What is Gore selling? 1 movie.
I can't understand why only conservatives and republicans(same thing these days) find it so hard to believe that we just may be affecting climate change. And Galen is right. They use all the unproven stuff from their preachers as evidence that it is not happening, just like they believe that God created us some 6000 years ago, and that we are all inbred. Because the Bible says so.

1 Movie
1 soon to be 2 books
A speaking tour...

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Same thing.
Nothing in recent climactic history can be considered irregular. Everything we are seeing has happenned many times before.
You should stop talking about what you don't know. Republicans and censervatives are not always the same, and your inane Bible comment shows yoru bias.
The bible is little more then a story book, in my eyes.

[Rochardrik]

1 Movie
1 soon to be 2 books
A speaking tour...

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Same thing.
Nothing in recent climactic history can be considered irregular. Everything we are seeing has happenned many times before.
You should stop talking about what you don't know. Republicans and censervatives are not always the same, and your inane Bible comment shows yoru bias.
The bible is little more then a story book, in my eyes.

But YOU are missing the point. A you said in an earlier thread something to this effect. First in the '70's they told us it was going to be a cold period, then they said it was global warming, I wish they'd make up their minds... Well, with that statement you contradict your own doubts. I told you, simply put, we are in a period of few sunspots, which, it's scientifically proved, would mean a colder global climate. Just the opposite is happening. What does that tell you? It would be a strong indication that other factors are causing a warmer climate. If you apply logic to that, you can come to only 1 conclusion. To bury your head in the sand and say, I don't believe it could happen, or that it positively is just another natural cycle would be completely irresponsible. Since it is almost impossible to prove either way, until it is too late... shouldn't we be doing what we can? Or should we just take all that money and apply it to studies of volcanoes.... oops sorry, you conservatives think that's a waste of money as well....nevermind!
P.S. I apologize for attributing comments about the Bible to you. I was thinking of Trap. But while we're on the subject, how does a true statement about how a majority of right leaning people believe show a bias? That has no logic, nor does it make the comment inane. It's a valid comment... the opposite of inane, I think.

[Galen Sevinne]

But YOU are missing the point. A you said in an earlier thread something to this effect. First in the '70's they told us it was going to be a cold period, then they said it was global warming, I wish they'd make up their minds... Well, with that statement you contradict your own doubts. I told you, simply put, we are in a period of few sunspots, which, it's scientifically proved, would mean a colder global climate. Just the opposite is happening. What does that tell you? It would be a strong indication that other factors are causing a warmer climate. If you apply logic to that, you can come to only 1 conclusion. To bury your head in the sand and say, I don't believe it could happen, or that it positively is just another natural cycle would be completely irresponsible. Since it is almost impossible to prove either way, until it is too late... shouldn't we be doing what we can? Or should we just take all that money and apply it to studies of volcanoes.... oops sorry, you conservatives think that's a waste of money as well....nevermind!

look at you gettin' all jiggy wit' dat science stuff! I already told you that to appeal to the connies you need to avoid the cerebrum and stick it to the amygdala.

[jonboy79]

But YOU are missing the point. A you said in an earlier thread something to this effect. First in the '70's they told us it was going to be a cold period, then they said it was global warming, I wish they'd make up their minds... Well, with that statement you contradict your own doubts. I told you, simply put, we are in a period of few sunspots, which, it's scientifically proved, would mean a colder global climate. Just the opposite is happening. What does that tell you? It would be a strong indication that other factors are causing a warmer climate. If you apply logic to that, you can come to only 1 conclusion. To bury your head in the sand and say, I don't believe it could happen, or that it positively is just another natural cycle would be completely irresponsible. Since it is almost impossible to prove either way, until it is too late... shouldn't we be doing what we can? Or should we just take all that money and apply it to studies of volcanoes.... oops sorry, you conservatives think that's a waste of money as well....nevermind!

The sunspot activity you speak of is a recent thing and HAS LEAD to reduced global temperatures for 2-3 years now. It's a big ole sin wave, and we crested in 05ish.

[Rochardrik]

Reefer Madness is DEAD on for "An Inconvenient Truth".
In both instances, they cherry pick information to their own cause, while COMPLETELY OVERLOOKING, the vast ammounts of information that don't fit the agenda.
Similarly, the message that we might be doing bad to the Earth is good, but they so ridiculously exagerrate the point that it makes the whole thing seem campy.
Again, I bring up PETA. Most people agree with the overall message, but Ethical treatment of animals is probably not as effectively spread because the messenger has a screw loose. The extreme and blind nature of the messenger reduces the value of the message.
Manmade Climate Change is essentially disproved. At the very least, it is KNOWN that the Earth's climate has a cyclical nature, and the recent period is not abnormal in the slightest, and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere TRAIL temperature increases.
If you just dropped that whole shtick, and scare tactic, and presented the concepts of conservatism on par with reality, the message will hold more value.
Tell me you think it might be a little bit bad for the planet for us to keep burning fossill fuels. Don't MAKE UP a fairy tail about how burning fossill fuels will put NYC under water within 20 years.
The movie was straight up Propaghanda, and that was KNOWN at the time by the producers of the movie, It was INTENTIONAL misleading of the public for profit. It's despicable.

Have you ever seen Reefer Madness? There is NO cherry picked info. There IS NO INFO. No stats, NO test results, No study results... nothing. Bad analogy