Fossil fuels can be replaced as an energy source in a decade, should we decide to do so. And the coal fired plants can be phased out during that decade, dirtiest first.
That same judge also ruled that the film was essentially correct. The errors were minor, and did not change the truth of the film.
Yes, money will be made off of cap and trade, as money was made off of cap and trade when it was used to vastly reduce sulphate emmissions. Personally I would prefer tax and shut down, but that would be impossible to pass.
If you wish to address the fact of AGW, perhaps you should start with argueing with the policy statements of the Scientific Societies in the world concerning that subject. Or the statements of the National Academies of Science of 32 countries. Or even the policy statements on that subject of the major Universities of the world.
The subject is the rapid warming of this planet due to the emission of GHGs from man's activities. It is not Al Gore, it is not any of the other red herring you people are so fond of. Now address that subject in a scientific manner. If you are capable of that.
More excuses and misdirection on the zinc mining on Al's property huh.... Why not address the point instead?
The decision against the film told the reality of it. The extra "essentially correct" crap was a save azz gesture on his part and only came after the fact. He also said the 9 errors did not reflect on accepted scientific consensus on the data. How is something "essentially correct" when it is inaccurate in its bread and butter? The hockey stick graph was altered and presented incorrectly, the claim of sea level rise was way off, and the time in which portrayed it would happen was completely inaccurate.
Quick answer: It can't be both "essentially correct" and dead wrong on the major points. Thats the kind of crap an elected official claims when he is going to lose votes....
Yes money will be made off it. Money made by the same people who push the legislation through.... You will defend THIS but complain about Bush, cheney and haliburton? Hypocrite...
Oh I saw the crap you posted earlier, and it didn't come from a scientific body of any kind. It was a load of bunk start to finish, so spare me the "its about science" BS now.
And this was my choice for an OP, if you want to debate the science that is another thread. This one is about the scum who are twisting the truth and trying to make money off it.
LOL, love it when you guys try the "its not about al gore" excuse.... You use his movie as a rallying cry for years, he gets a nobel prize for it, and then when you find its all nonsense we are told its not about al gore..... Okay, pal.... lets make it about his business partner and UN environmental Guru Maurice Strong.... What's the next excuse?
