Gore Refuses to take The Pledge

[red states rule]

Hmmmm. Maybe that is the whole point. I'm not sure. Meaning to read through all your stuff whether interesting or not, takes time. Which I suppose is true of any truth finding endeavor and thus easier to just stick with what you believe.

I do. MM and his type seem to have a phobia to facts

BTW, it is interesting to see how the forecasters blew the weather for today. No snow in most of the East

Yet we are to blindly accept what they tell us will happen in 50 years

 

[maineman]

Hmmmm. Maybe that is the whole point. I'm not sure. Meaning to read through all your stuff whether interesting or not, takes time. Which I suppose is true of any truth finding endeavor and thus easier to just stick with what you believe.

denny.... I left this argument with RSR and put himj on ignore because not only can he not put anything into his own words, but when he tries, he lies. He can disagree about the effectiveness of carbon offsets all he wants.... I am aware that that is a program that is not that well defined and still in its infancy - RSR points to some problems in the implementation and uses them to issue his blanket condemnation about them and about the entire theory of global warming. It is laughable. My point was always about his refusal to acknowledge that Gore's use of GREEN electricity is real. It costs Gore a ton for the green option, which is why his electric bill is so high, but it also means that the electricity that HE uses was generated with ZERO impact on global warming. RSR keeps trying to make this about carbon offsets, and refuses to concede that green electricity is, in fact, green... and that Al Gore does, in fact, use exclusively green electricity in his home.

But beyond this one thread, RSR continues to rely on cut and paste words of others and he will NEVER just answer basic questions that are posed to him. NEVER! It was the cumulative effect of all that obfuscation...and all that cut and paste spamming ...that finally caused me to realize that banging my head against the wall was as close as I was ever going to get to actually getting RSR to talk with ME instead of yell past me. There are plenty of intelligent thoughtful and articulate conservatives on this board and other boards that WILL use their own words to discuss issues with me. I decided that wasting my time with RSR was just that - a profound waste of time.

 

[red states rule]

denny.... I left this argument with RSR and put himj on ignore because not only can he not put anything into his own words, but when he tries, he lies. He can disagree about the effectiveness of carbon offsets all he wants.... I am aware that that is a program that is not that well defined and still in its infancy - RSR points to some problems in the implementation and uses them to issue his blanket condemnation about them and about the entire theory of global warming. It is laughable. My point was always about his refusal to acknowledge that Gore's use of GREEN electricity is real. It costs Gore a ton for the green option, which is why his electric bill is so high, but it also means that the electricity that HE uses was generated with ZERO impact on global warming. RSR keeps trying to make this about carbon offsets, and refuses to concede that green electricity is, in fact, green... and that Al Gore does, in fact, use exclusively green electricity in his home.

But beyond this one thread, RSR continues to rely on cut and paste words of others and he will NEVER just answer basic questions that are posed to him. NEVER! It was the cumulative effect of all that obfuscation...and all that cut and paste spamming ...that finally caused me to realize that banging my head against the wall was as close as I was ever going to get to actually getting RSR to talk with ME instead of yell past me. There are plenty of intelligent thoughtful and articulate conservatives on this board and other boards that WILL use their own words to discuss issues with me. I decided that wasting my time with RSR was just that - a profound waste of time.

Funny how you "left" after the examples of carbon offsets are nothing more then a scam

Libs like you promote these feel good rip offs so you can use them to dismiss the actions of Al Gore and other liberal elites

 

[Bern80]

denny.... I left this argument with RSR and put himj on ignore because not only can he not put anything into his own words, but when he tries, he lies. He can disagree about the effectiveness of carbon offsets all he wants.... I am aware that that is a program that is not that well defined and still in its infancy - RSR points to some problems in the implementation and uses them to issue his blanket condemnation about them and about the entire theory of global warming. It is laughable. My point was always about his refusal to acknowledge that Gore's use of GREEN electricity is real. It costs Gore a ton for the green option, which is why his electric bill is so high, but it also means that the electricity that HE uses was generated with ZERO impact on global warming. RSR keeps trying to make this about carbon offsets, and refuses to concede that green electricity is, in fact, green... and that Al Gore does, in fact, use exclusively green electricity in his home.

But there is one major assumption there. It is that if Gore didn't use green energy there would be an impact on global warming. Now you would probably agree that even if true Gore alone isn't haveing a significant impact on global warming one way or the way other whether he uses green energy or not. But again there is still this outstanding question as to whether human's are haveing a significant impact on global warming, primarily in terms of CO2 production. Gore's movie isn't very convincing. It's very dramatic, but not very convincing. The research I have read is quite convincing and suggests that not only did Gore leave a lot of important information in pursuit of an agenda, but also that are impact on global warming is negligible.

 

[red states rule]

One thing is for sure. This global warming is becoming a pain



Snow closes schools, grounds airlines

CHICAGO - Another spring snowstorm spread across the upper Midwest on Wednesday, closing schools and grounding more than 200 airline flights.

North Dakota had already measured 7 inches, and up to 10 inches was possible in Wisconsin, the National Weather Service said.

More than 200 flights were canceled at O'Hare International Airport because of poor visibility, said aviation spokeswoman Wendy Abrams. The airport also had delays that were about 60 to 90 minutes on inbound and outbound flights. Delays at Midway Airport were about 20 to 30 minutes, she said.

Nearly two dozen school districts canceled classes Wednesday across southern Minnesota, where up to 6 inches of snow was forecast.

Snow this late is not unusual, said weather service meteorologist Andrew Krein in Chicago.

"Typically every few years we'll get some snow in April," Krein said. "Snow in April is not unheard of."

However, the forecast amounts did get attention. Up to 9 inches of snow was forecast in northern Iowa, where normal temperatures at this time of year are in the 60s.

"This is quite unusual in terms of snowfall this late in the season," said Rich Kinney, a weather service meteorologist in Johnston, Iowa.

Five inches of snow was possible in northern Illinois, before turning to rain during the afternoon.

During the weekend, a cold wave sent temperatures to the freezing point as far south as the Gulf states, devastating crops, and heavy snow wiped out scheduled Angels-Indians baseball for four straight days at Cleveland. The teams' games were finally moved to an enclosed field at Milwaukee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_us/midwest_snowstorm_1

 

[red states rule]

Wow. You two just don't give up do you? Maine, if your so tired of the way he debates, here's a thought STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.

RSR quit being so obstinate.

I am tired of sifting through pages of crap between you two to find the most recent actually worthwhile piece of dialogue.

This is what MM hates - what libs say.............

Radical Environmentalism Revealed: Ending Sovereignty and Private Property
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 16, 2007 - 07:26.
Scratch a radical environmentalist, find a radical, full stop. Case in point: Boston Globe columnist James Carroll. In his New thinking to save the earth [is that all?], Carroll calls for nothing less than the end of the United States as we know it, and a yours-is-mine socialism.

Carroll claims that "if the earth is to survive as a human habitat," the meaning of four subjects "must be transformed." Among the things Carroll wants to redefine are "nation" and "property." Ominous enough, but getting down into the details is even more chilling.

Nation: A 19th-century notion of national sovereignty allows sub groups to pursue agendas without regard for their effects on the whole. But this wrongly assumes that the health of the whole is a matter of indifference to the group. The United States has long refused to temper its claim to radical independence from all other nations, but that both defines the source of America's disproportionate ecological destructiveness and impedes every effort to mitigate it. There will be no stopping environmental degradation until nations stop thinking of independent sovereignty as an absolute. Climate change respects no borders.
Consider the condescension. Those benighted people who believe in the notion of the USA are hopelessly stuck in the 1800s, unlike the enlightened Carroll and his green fellow travelers. That "claim to radical independence"? Most of us would simply call it independence and sovereignty. And the implication of his statement that climate change respects no borders is clear: we shouldn't either.

Property: In America, where full citizenship was originally granted only to property owners, we are what we have. The pursuit of happiness equals the accumulation of possessions. This cult of "more" drives an economy that defines its health by growth, its market by the globe. In families, the success of a second generation is defined only by its surpassing in affluence the first. This merciless consumption divides people into "haves," "the have less," and "have nots," but it also eats the environment alive. Sufficiency, simplicity, and a sense that the treasures of the earth are the property of all people must become notes of the new America.
Carroll makes Americans out to be little more than cargo cultists. As for success being defined only in terms of affluence, says who? America is filled with people who in their professional and/or private lives devote themselves to helping others. And his line about "the treasures of the earth" being "the property of all people," is nothing less than unreconstructed Marxism.

Thanks go to Carroll for his candor. He confirms what so many have suspected: that radical environmentalism is little more than a cloak for socialism and not mere anti-Americanism but quite literally the abolition of the United States of America.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12058

 

[red states rule]

no... please stop trying to "translate" my words. You are the LAST person on this site that ought to be translating anyone's words given your profound inability to express yourself in YOUR own words.

I really am growing tired of this. I have been asking you serious questions on a number of threads now for weeks, and you consistently refuse to answer any of them.

Why bother?

Still no comment on the carbon offset rip-off?

Leo DiCaprio's New Global Warming Doc 'Won't Be Drowned Out' By 'Contrary Viewpoint'
Posted by Lynn Davidson on April 15, 2007 - 23:06.

Apparently, hearing both sides of the global warming debate is too much for Hollywood heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio. Rush & Malloy of New York’s Daily News reported that Leo doesn’t like "contrary" views in his “documentary” about global warming, “The 11th Hour.” After being part of an ABC special about “threats to the Earth,” Leo decided that dissent ist verboten! So now he’s making a real documentary—minus all of that pesky questioning (emphasis mine throughout):


Leonardo DiCaprio has heard enough bilge from oil-company apologists. At last week's Natural Resources Defense Council gala here, the three-time Oscar nominee recalled taking part in an ABC film a few years ago that focused on threats to the Earth. "Unfortunately, the message was drowned out by the inclusion of the contrary viewpoint," said DiCaprio, who narrated and co-wrote the forthcoming environmental doc "The 11th Hour." DiCaprio said this film focuses only on those who acknowledge global warming, such as Stephen Hawking, Mikhail Gorbachev and Andrew Weil. "The message won't be diluted by our having to yell over oil-company-funded 'scientists,' " he said.


This is exactly why there are “global warming deniers.” Instead of a panel of climatologists, DiCaprio presents as global warming "experts," a Communist opportunist who still resents America and an alternative-medicine hoaxster who claims people can bend spoons with their minds. At least Stephen Hawking is actually a legitimate scientist, but he’s a theoretical physicist not a climatologist.

Be suspicious when the true believers elevate modern day snake oil salesmen to the level of expert. Give people a legitimate documentary that presents more than the one side. What are they so afraid of?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12054

 

[red states rule]

denny.... I left this argument with RSR and put himj on ignore because not only can he not put anything into his own words, but when he tries, he lies. He can disagree about the effectiveness of carbon offsets all he wants.... I am aware that that is a program that is not that well defined and still in its infancy - RSR points to some problems in the implementation and uses them to issue his blanket condemnation about them and about the entire theory of global warming. It is laughable. My point was always about his refusal to acknowledge that Gore's use of GREEN electricity is real. It costs Gore a ton for the green option, which is why his electric bill is so high, but it also means that the electricity that HE uses was generated with ZERO impact on global warming. RSR keeps trying to make this about carbon offsets, and refuses to concede that green electricity is, in fact, green... and that Al Gore does, in fact, use exclusively green electricity in his home.

But beyond this one thread, RSR continues to rely on cut and paste words of others and he will NEVER just answer basic questions that are posed to him. NEVER! It was the cumulative effect of all that obfuscation...and all that cut and paste spamming ...that finally caused me to realize that banging my head against the wall was as close as I was ever going to get to actually getting RSR to talk with ME instead of yell past me. There are plenty of intelligent thoughtful and articulate conservatives on this board and other boards that WILL use their own words to discuss issues with me. I decided that wasting my time with RSR was just that - a profound waste of time.

GMA Provides Hyperbolic Report on ‘Moderate’ Global Warming Estimate
Posted by Scott Whitlock on April 17, 2007 - 15:16.
On Saturday’s "Good Morning America," correspondent Christianne Klein hyped this past weekend’s global warming rallies by reporting hyperbolic and misleading information on the subject of rising sea levels. Reporting from lower Manhattan before a gaggle of environmental activists, she said of the protesters, "Now, where they will stand represents where the Manhattan coastline could be if the sea level rises just 10 feet, actually, a moderate estimate for global warming standards."

A 10 feet increase is a moderate estimate? Not quite. As the CATO Institute's Patrick Michaels noted, the much hyped U.N. report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested a rise of inches, not feet, is likely:

Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100....Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly.

On the subject of global warming, "Good Morning America" has quickly morphed into the most activist network morning show. On Friday, April 20, GMA will take part in an all day event that a recent ABC advertisement described as "a call to action." Additionally, it asserted that "mother nature is sending us a message." The ABC program has also hyped a global warming college tour and the phenomenon of "green weddings."

So, perhaps it’s not surprising that "Good Morning America" has a somewhat skewed impression of what a "moderate estimate" is.

A transcript of the brief segment, which aired at 7:32am on April 14, follows:

RON CLAIBORNE: "And across the country today, hundreds of rallies are planned to try to spark action on the problem of global warming. ABC's Christianne Klein joins us now from downtown New York with more. Christianne?"

CHRISTIANNE KLEIN: "Well, Ron, in just a few hours, this place will be packed with people all wearing blue. Now, where they will stand represents where the Manhattan coastline could be if the sea level rises just 10 feet, actually, a moderate estimate for global warming standards. This is just one of 1300 events happening across the country today. The campaign is actually called Step It Up. It was kicked off last night in New Orleans. And the goal is to push Congress to cut global warming pollution by 80 percent by 2050. And just last week, an international group of scientists warned that the Earth is heating up, mostly due to greenhouse gases. They warn 30 percent of species could face extinction. There could be more heat waves, wildfire danger and more intense storms. Now, as individuals, there are many ways to cut down on carbon emissions. By reducing your garbage by just 10 percent, you can actually save more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Ron?"

http://newsbusters.org/node/12094

 

[boedicca]

I <3 this thread.

 

[maineman]

explain why you less than three a thread?

 

[maineman]

But there is one major assumption there. It is that if Gore didn't use green energy there would be an impact on global warming. Now you would probably agree that even if true Gore alone isn't haveing a significant impact on global warming one way or the way other whether he uses green energy or not. But again there is still this outstanding question as to whether human's are haveing a significant impact on global warming, primarily in terms of CO2 production. Gore's movie isn't very convincing. It's very dramatic, but not very convincing. The research I have read is quite convincing and suggests that not only did Gore leave a lot of important information in pursuit of an agenda, but also that are impact on global warming is negligible.

the assumption does not change the fact that the electricity he uses is green, that its production has no impact on the environment, that he pays a shitload more for it, and that he is not, therefore, a hypocrite because of the size of his electric bill.

 

[Bern80]

the assumption does not change the fact that the electricity he uses is green, that its production has no impact on the environment, that he pays a shitload more for it, and that he is not, therefore, a hypocrite because of the size of his electric bill.

It most certainly does, because it means he may not be making a difference no matter what type of energy he uses.

 

[maineman]

It most certainly does, because it means he may not be making a difference no matter what type of energy he uses.

he may not be making a positive contribution, but he certainly is NOT making a negative contribution as are the vast majority of electricity consumers in America.

 

[maineman]

and the fact that he is NOT making any negative contribution means that he is not being a hypocrite.

come on...this can't be that tough for you to understand.

 

[red states rule]

he may not be making a positive contribution, but he certainly is NOT making a negative contribution as are the vast majority of electricity consumers in America.

Just another energy hog

and a liberal elite who has been busted

 

[maineman]

Just another energy hog

and a liberal elite who has been busted

no...it shows your lack of understanding of America's electricity market.

but then, you show a lack of understanding about almost everything.

 

[red states rule]

no...it shows your lack of understanding of America's electricity market.

but then, you show a lack of understanding about almost everything.

I do understand a see liberal hypocrite when I see one

and with all the weight Al has put on you can't miss him

 

[maineman]

I do understand a see liberal hypocrite when I see one

and with all the weight Al has put on you can't miss him

that doesn't change the FACT that you do not understand the electricity distrubution market in America and you do not understand what the entire concept of green electricity is all about.

 

[red states rule]

that doesn't change the FACT that you do not understand the electricity distrubution market in America and you do not understand what the entire concept of green electricity is all about.

I understand libs lecture us how to live our lives - while they ignore the lecture

Keep spinning

BTW this damn global warming is damn cold for mid April

 

[maineman]

I understand libs lecture us how to live our lives - while they ignore the lecture

Keep spinning

BTW this damn global warming is damn cold for mid April

keep ignoring your own ignorance


you clearly do not understand our nation's electricity markets and you clearly do not understand climate change