Live Earth Concerts Begin Today

[red states rule]

Just slap a bumper sticker on your car that says "don't pollute" and you can feel better than everyone who doesn't have one. Being a lib is easy.

I am sure it would look good on a Hummer

 

[red states rule]

Al Gore sings Ball of Fire


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZrhG2iT3H0&watch_response[/ame]

 

[mattskramer]

Before you lecture the right on conservation - please speak to the people who are telling us to conserve

Again, you are trying to throw words into my mouth. I never lectured anyone on conservation. I merely answered a question that you posed on post number 35 of this thread. Grow up. You’re your games of ducking and dodging, and intellectual dishonesty, are really getting to be pathetic.

 

[mattskramer]

Well ??? Did you take Als' oath or not?

No. Yet, I think that I will consider recycling a little bit more often.

 

[mattskramer]

What dodge? Media Matters ignores the facts and twists and turns things to fir the Soros agenda (sinc ehe is paying the bills for them)

Just to answer RSR’s question as simply as I can:

1. Thread 28: RSR presents a criticism of Media Matters.

2. Thread 29: I present a criticism of Newsbusters.

3. Thread 30: He asks me to the part on Newsbusters that was criticized.

4. Thread 33: I agree to go through the time and trouble to find the link.

For the sake of fairness, I ask him to do find the link to Media Matters
I wait and what but RSR does not do his part first.

5. Thread 41: I go ahead and do my part anyway.

6. Thread 45: Without his saying so, RSR gives up and ask a different question.

7. Thread 46: I answer his question without lecturing on conservation.

8. Thread 55:I still wait for RSR show the Media Matters par that was criticized.

10. Thread 64: RSR implies that I am trying to lecture Conservatives.

I still wait for RSR to direct me to the link on Media Matters.

 

[Annie]

Personally I'm not sold on the whole idea of global warming, but I do subscribe to the idea that we are stewards of our environment. Thus no littering; try not to waste; hope that all those cans, bottles, newspapers put into recycling cans do end up being recycled. I try to keep the thermostat at a reasonable level in winter and summer.

Then there are these folks, that really have a lot to say about the rest of us:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/live-earth-performers-urge-earthlings.html

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Frankly, I'm not interested in debating global warming with the last few dead-ender denialists. The vast majority of the planet has moved on, and every single major scientific body on the planet, with expertise in climate science, has concluded humans are affecting the climate adversly.

Not all scientists believe that global warming is caused by man, or even that the rise in CO2 from .04% to .02% or whatever is caused primarily by man. The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary does a pretty good job of debunking this. (a documentary made by Marxists, btw) Solar activity and/or the earth's Malinkovich cycles cause global warming, and global warming in turn causes higher amounts of CO2 to be released from the oceans. If man-made CO2 causes global warming, then you'll have to explain why the temperature of Mars is rising too.

Even your own President Bush, admits we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

I couldn't care less what some ignoramus politician says, especially when he's wrong about 80% of the time on any given issue, especially when his wall street buddies are licking their chops at the prospect of making profits from trading carbon credits.

Maybe its humiliating to admit you were wrong, given that you and your NeoCon buddies spent the last 20 years denying something that we should have started working on at least a decade ago. But, there's so few of you flat-earth denialists left anymore, that its really not even worth debating with you. We've passed the tipping point on this. Sorry.

Translation: I can't argue facts, so I'm going to pretend that there is a consensus. Scientists would never chase after government grant money, and government has no motivation to push the idea of man-made global warming, no siree. They are interested in our well-being, not carbon credits and sin taxes on energy.



PS: I'm not a neocon, in fact I argue with neocons frequently as my post history shows.

 

[dilloduck]

No. Yet, I think that I will consider recycling a little bit more often.

And it took a world wide concert to convince you of that ??

 

[DeadCanDance]

Not all scientists believe that global warming is caused by man, or even that the rise in CO2 from .04% to .02% or whatever is caused primarily by man. The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary does a pretty good job of debunking this. (a documentary made by Marxists, btw) Solar activity and/or the earth's Malinkovich cycles cause global warming, and global warming in turn causes higher amounts of CO2 to be released from the oceans. If man-made CO2 causes global warming, then you'll have to explain why the temperature of Mars is rising too.



I couldn't care less what some ignoramus politician says, especially when he's wrong about 80% of the time on any given issue, especially when his wall street buddies are licking their chops at the prospect of making profits from trading carbon credits.



Translation: I can't argue facts, so I'm going to pretend that there is a consensus. Scientists would never chase after government grant money, and government has no motivation to push the idea of man-made global warming, no siree. They are interested in our well-being, not carbon credits and sin taxes on energy.



PS: I'm not a neocon, in fact I argue with neocons frequently as my post history shows.

You're not a climate scientist. I'm not a climate scientist. So your opinion and my opinion on the topic doesn't carry much weight. I wouldn't put much weight into your or my opinion about neurosurgery for the same reason.

Every single scientific body and organization on the entire planet (with expertise in climate science) has already agreed that the evidence of overwhelming that humans are impact climate change.

Can you find a few people with science degrees who don't concur with the overwhelming consensus? Of course. You'll never find 100% agreement in science. 400 years after Isacc Newton, you won't find 100% of scientists agreeing on what exactly gravity is, or how in operates. And you'll never find the "skeptics" published in peer-reviewed scientific research journals. That speaks volumes.


But, the fact is, if eleven out of twelve brain surgeons told you you had a brain tumour, you'd go with their consensus opinion, rather than the one guy who says you don't have a tumour.

 

[mattskramer]

And it took a world wide concert to convince you of that ??

No. A tap on the shoulder would have sufficed. Yet, to get the message to a world-wide audience, and hold people’s attention as long as possible, I think that a “global concert” would work. Look at what advertisers spend to have their advertisements run during a Super Bowl. Anyway, I don’t work for a marketing firm. They might have done well or not. I’m not even arguing the merits of environmental protection. I’m simply saying that the show may have influenced me (and some other people) a tiny bit if at all – I answered your question. I’m not going to run a cost-benefit analysis. I’m not an “environmentalist wacko – I had a cheeseburger last night.

 

[mattskramer]

Personally I'm not sold on the whole idea of global warming, but I do subscribe to the idea that we are stewards of our environment. Thus no littering; try not to waste; hope that all those cans, bottles, newspapers put into recycling cans do end up being recycled. I try to keep the thermostat at a reasonable level in winter and summer.

Then there are these folks, that really have a lot to say about the rest of us:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/live-earth-performers-urge-earthlings.html

Wow. I doubt that even I’m that environmentally conscious.

 

[Annie]

You're not a climate scientist. I'm not a climate scientist. So your opinion and my opinion on the topic doesn't carry much weight. I wouldn't put much weight into your or my opinion about neurosurgery for the same reason.

Every single scientific body and organization on the entire planet (with expertise in climate science) has already agreed that the evidence of overwhelming that humans are impact climate change.

Can you find a few people with science degrees who don't concur with the overwhelming consensus? Of course. You'll never find 100% agreement in science. 400 years after Isacc Newton, you won't find 100% of scientists agreeing on what exactly gravity is, or how in operates. And you'll never find the "skeptics" published in peer-reviewed scientific research journals. That speaks volumes.


But, the fact is, if eleven out of twelve brain surgeons told you you had a brain tumour, you'd go with their consensus opinion, rather than the one guy who says you don't have a tumour.

Forecasting v. Science

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...ophecies/2007/07/06/1183351452273.html?page=2

 

[dilloduck]

You're not a climate scientist. I'm not a climate scientist. So your opinion and my opinion on the topic doesn't carry much weight. I wouldn't put much weight into your or my opinion about neurosurgery for the same reason.

Every single scientific body and organization on the entire planet (with expertise in climate science) has already agreed that the evidence of overwhelming that humans are impact climate change.

Can you find a few people with science degrees who don't concur with the overwhelming consensus? Of course. You'll never find 100% agreement in science. 400 years after Isacc Newton, you won't find 100% of scientists agreeing on what exactly gravity is, or how in operates. And you'll never find the "skeptics" published in peer-reviewed scientific research journals. That speaks volumes.


But, the fact is, if eleven out of twelve brain surgeons told you you had a brain tumour, you'd go with their consensus opinion, rather than the one guy who says you don't have a tumour.

Let me simplify things for you---everyone agrees that it's a good thing for people to clean up after themselves. Of course humans have made an impact on our environment. Recycling has existed for decades. Energy efficency is good. Pollution is bad. Everyone KNEW all this--well I thought they did until Al came along.

 

[Annie]

Wow. I doubt that even I’m that environmentally conscious.

Matts, I'm not being condescending or anything, but do you realize that implied in your 'compliment' is an underlying sentiment that because you consider yourself superior to myself assuming that because you are a self-proclaimed 'moderate moderate', you are shocked that I might try and do a right thing or two?

I've volunteered numerous hours teaching ESL to adult immigrants, not knowing if they were legal or not? Yes, I am for closing the borders to illegals.

While I'm against excessive welfare programs, I've also volunteered work at our homeless shelters? I've worked within my church for programs that give free or subsidized living quarters with training to help poor parents with children find housing in my rather expensive county?

You seem to believe that 'liberal' means generous and enlightened. Over the years I've come to a very different conclusion.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

You're not a climate scientist. I'm not a climate scientist. So your opinion and my opinion on the topic doesn't carry much weight. I wouldn't put much weight into your or my opinion about neurosurgery for the same reason.

True, but there are quite a few scientists in the video I linked who disagree.

Every single scientific body and organization on the entire planet (with expertise in climate science) has already agreed that the evidence of overwhelming that humans are impact climate change.

This is flatly false. Again, watch the movie I linked.

Can you find a few people with science degrees who don't concur with the overwhelming consensus? Of course. You'll never find 100% agreement in science. 400 years after Isacc Newton, you won't find 100% of scientists agreeing on what exactly gravity is, or how in operates. And you'll never find the "skeptics" published in peer-reviewed scientific research journals. That speaks volumes.

Every physicist on earth will tell you that gravity causes an acceleration of 9.81 m/s2. That's because the data is clear, unlike that of global warming.

I don't have access to peer-reviewed literature, nor would I have any way of searching two decades worth of highly technical articles to verify or disprove your claim. I'm sure the same is true for you. I'm going to hazard a guess though: at least some of the many, many scientists interviewed in TGGWS have published their findings. Just a hunch.

But, the fact is, if eleven out of twelve brain surgeons told you you had a brain tumour, you'd go with their consensus opinion, rather than the one guy who says you don't have a tumour.

Suppose that:

* Brain surgery was in it's infancy;
* They observed a slight anomaly, but predicted major problems in the future, based upon computer modeling;
* The computer modeling paid close attention to slight fluctuations in the swelling of my brain tissue, while completely ignoring my profession as a boxer, or my binge drinking;
* They ignored all the documented past episodes where my brain anomaly flared up and receded with no particularly ill effects, all by itself;
* The surgeons' research was funded by government grants, and the government was interested in stirring up a brain tumor scare as a means of heavily taxing liquor;
* The surgeons would be immediately unemployed if I said no to the surgery;

...then no, I would not choose to let the 11 surgeons drill a hole in my skull and dig around in my brain.

 

[mattskramer]

Matts, I'm not being condescending or anything, but do you realize that implied in your 'compliment' is an underlying sentiment that because you consider yourself superior to myself assuming that because you are a self-proclaimed 'moderate moderate', you are shocked that I might try and do a right thing or two?

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I do not consider myself superior to you. I do consider myself to be an intellectual moderate – willing to think about issues from both sides of the political spectrum. I try to do the “right” thing to some degree. Some people do more than I do. Some people do less.

I've volunteered numerous hours teaching ESL to adult immigrants, not knowing if they were legal or not? Yes, I am for closing the borders to illegals.

I have no objection to that. I volunteered many hours at Caritas. I do not question those who come asking for food whether they are illegal immigrants or not. I’ve also volunteered at Habitat For Humanity and donated much to The UnitedWay.

While I'm against excessive welfare programs, I've also volunteered work at our homeless shelters? I've worked within my church for programs that give free or subsidized living quarters with training to help poor parents with children find housing in my rather expensive county?

Cool

You seem to believe that 'liberal' means generous and enlightened. Over the years I've come to a very different conclusion.

No. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I believe that there should be a safety net. The question comes down to where to draw the line. I still feel as though I’m at a loss for words. Perhaps I painted an incorrect picture of myself or you are drawing an incorrect conclusion. I am a moderate.

 

[Annie]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I do not consider myself superior to you. I do consider myself to be an intellectual moderate – willing to think about issues from both sides of the political spectrum. I try to do the “right” thing to some degree. Some people do more than I do. Some people do less.



I have no objection to that. I volunteered many hours at Caritas. I do not question those who come asking for food whether they are illegal immigrants or not. I’ve also volunteered at Habitat For Humanity and donated much to The UnitedWay.



Cool



No. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I believe that there should be a safety net. The question comes down to where to draw the line. I still feel as though I’m at a loss for words. Perhaps I painted an incorrect picture of myself or you are drawing an incorrect conclusion. I am a moderate.

Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you have come off as a pompous ass. Just the fact that you seemed 'surprised' that I might be doing more 'to help the earth' as if either of us could, says volumes.

 

[mattskramer]

Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you have come off as a pompous ass. Just the fact that you seemed 'surprised' that I might be doing more 'to help the earth' as if either of us could, says volumes.

Yeah. I guess that did come across poorly as an “arrogant SOB”. I was just bored and jabbering. I think that I’m really easy going “middle-of-the-road” kinda guy. Thrifty without being a miser and generous without being terribly wasteful. I’m sorry if my message came across otherwise. Peace.

 

[Annie]

Yeah. I guess that did come across poorly as an “arrogant SOB”. I was just bored and jabbering. I think that I’m really easy going “middle-of-the-road” kinda guy. Thrifty without being a miser and generous without being terribly wasteful. I’m sorry if my message came across otherwise. Peace.

No harm and no foul. I'm impressed with your honest assessment.

 

[red states rule]

Again, you are trying to throw words into my mouth. I never lectured anyone on conservation. I merely answered a question that you posed on post number 35 of this thread. Grow up. You’re your games of ducking and dodging, and intellectual dishonesty, are really getting to be pathetic.

I was responding to this - in post #46

2. Ask the many, like you, who might be watching to do a teeny tiny bit more to conserve resources and recycle.


When the enviro wackos like Al start walking the walk - then I might pay attention to what they say