Al Gore's Private Jet

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 6, 5:51 am, kontiki wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

Regardless, it would seem that the climate is warming now, and it
would behoove us ALL to do what we can to reduce the speed with which
that is occurring.

Okay, so what do you propose? That we all pay a 'carbon tax' ?
How is giving government even more of our hard earned money gonna
change the climate of the earth? What has government done that makes
you believe it would do any good?

Ya want government to legistlate and control our lives in an attempt
somehow control the temperature of the earth? What about other
countries... are we going to attack and conquer them and MAKE them
stop producing babies?

No, I think the ideas is that the U.S. is suppose to 1) pay the
"carbon tax" for the rest of the world as well and 2) return to the
Amish way of life. The agenda behind global warming is quiet clear. 1)
We are suppose to feel ashamed that we have the world's strongest
economy and need to distribute (ie give) our money to the rest of the
world and 2) We need *MUCH* bigger gov't to take care of us. If you
ever had any doubts, look at what the world economic summits have done
with regard to China and India's pollution. NOTHING. The global
warming groups (U.S. and international) have a very anti-American
agenda. It makes me sick to watch guys like Gore and Clinton go around
the world and talk about how terrible the U.S. is. If they're going to
do that, they can just stay and not come back!

-Robert

It is predicted that by the end of '07, China and India will exceed the US
in carbon emissions. Stupidity is rampant!

On Apr 6, 4:38 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" wrote in
:

The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.

You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.

Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.

The current global temperature is lower than during the medieval warm
period. We are still trending up from the little ice age. Warming
started 150 years ago, long before man began producing any significant
CO2.

The contention that man-made CO2 drives the global climate is
fallacious.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:47:16 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
nk.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.


I've heard nobody trying to refute that fact. What's being refuted is the
claim that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.


It's good to see that we agree on the fundamental premise. Of course
the human-cause aspect of the issue is only inferred, so it is subject
to interpretation.

Despite that, it seems only prudent to do what we can to retard the
rate of climate change for our own good. And in the process, if we
are able to reduce our dependence on oil and advance the trend toward
renewable energy, which is inevitable, we advance technological
development in a healthier direction, in my opinion.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:47:16 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
nk.net:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.

I've heard nobody trying to refute that fact. What's being refuted is the
claim that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.


It's good to see that we agree on the fundamental premise. Of course
the human-cause aspect of the issue is only inferred, so it is subject
to interpretation.

Despite that, it seems only prudent to do what we can to retard the
rate of climate change for our own good. And in the process, if we
are able to reduce our dependence on oil and advance the trend toward
renewable energy, which is inevitable, we advance technological
development in a healthier direction, in my opinion.

How do we know that warmer isn't in fact better? Maybe it would be
better if we tried to accelerate the warming? :-)

Matt

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:51:05 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Stop being so anal and enjoy your life... everyone is gonna die
eventually.

Right. Global climate change is likely only to have a limited impact
on ME personally, as the bulk of my life is behind me. To hell with
the future generations. So what if they inherit the consequences of
our generation's rush to combust the products of hundreds of millions
or years of life on our planet; it won't affect me today. Brilliant!
Why didn't I think of that? :-(

wrote in message
oups.com...


- Show quoted text -

You mean the CO2 that is a vital nutrient to plant life and key to
photosynthesis of food for those same plants? The CO2 that is
currently at 380ppm but has been at 3000ppm for most of the history of
life on the planet? The same CO2 that at 1000ppm stimulates plants to
grow 50% faster than they do at 380ppm? The same CO2 that is a minor
greenhouse gas when compared with water vapor, which is the dominant
greenhouse gas and absorber of infra-red radiation? The same CO2 that
you emit every time you exhale? The same CO2 that is the primary
source of carbon for carbon based lifeforms on this planet? The same
CO2 that has to be in excess of 5000ppm to pose a respiritory problem
for animals and humans?

You talk about CO2 like it is some form of pollution, rather than a
key component of life on this planet.

Not to mention that core sample data indicates that temperture rise PRECEEDS
corresponding CO2 rise by several hundred years...

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:


Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.


and evisence indicates the planet Mars is warming also.

What amazes me is that significant numbers of people in this
country believe that congress can legislatively control the
climate of the planet or the output of the sun.

It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.

Sorta reminds me of Bastiat's tale of the candlemakers petition against the
Sun.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 5, 7:13 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" wrote in
:

The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.

You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

Pretty cool. I love how he's been responding to the scientists who
claim he misquoted them in the movie. In essence, he said he isn't
smart enough to understand the actual specifics of climate change but
he believes he got the essence of the meaning across. You got to hand
it to him, he's taken himself from a totally washed up has-been to
front page news with this industry. I"m still waiting to hear him tell
us how we are also causing the global warming that is happening on
Mars.


Interview with Gore that appeared (May 2006) in a publication called Grist:

Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about
global warming and
get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the
right mix?

Go I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is.
In the United States
of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the
Category 5 denial is an
enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in
solutions if they don't
think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is
appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how
dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve
this
crisis.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:00:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
nk.net:


1: There is no heaven or hell.


Prove it.


It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.

How about you prove heaven or hell exists as other than a
self-delusional state of mind instead?


There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

On Apr 6, 3:38 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" wrote in
:

The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.

You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.

Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.

Yes the climate is warming, but what do we have to do with it? How are
we suppose to change the cycles of temps, and who are we to tell the
planet to maintain an constant temp? BTW: Are we talking about the
global warming on Earth or Mars at the moment?

-Robert