Al Gore's Private Jet

"Jose" wrote in message
...

No, it's different in several important ways.

1: There is no heaven or hell.


Prove it.

Then prove that human activity is the primary driver in global warming.

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

1: There is no heaven or hell.
Prove it.

I could, but then I'd have to kill you.

Then prove that human activity is the primary driver in global warming.

I never made that claim. I don't dispute it, but I don't make it either.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

kontiki wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.

Now THAT I will 100% agree with, all other arguments in this thread aside!!!

"kontiki" wrote in message
...

It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.


Which demonstrates that a majority of voters prefer losers as leaders.

wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:38 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
The real issue though isn't the size of the house, it is the hypocrisy
that Gore represents and that Bush does not. Gore is the one crying
wolf and telling us how we have to change our lifestyle in order to
"save the world" all while doing completely the opposite personally. I
haven't heard Bush making such claims.

Well Matt, you're quite incorrect. Please get yourself informed.

Gore isn't telling you to go live in a cave.

He's telling you that all of us need to take responsibility for the
amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. That's all. It's
just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.

If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
doing.

Get it? Got it? Good. Aviation-free, sorry about that.

-Jay-


The earth's climate, land mass and atmosphere has changed continuously
since the earth was formed. Why the hell does anyone thing it should
become static now that we are here?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
...
No, it's different in several important ways.

1: There is no heaven or hell.


Prove it.

Then prove that human activity is the primary driver in global warming.



Neither can be proven. The difference is that most religion's admit
that you must have faith, whereas the global warming zealots claim to
have proof when they don't.

Matt

wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:38 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
The real issue though isn't the size of the house, it is the hypocrisy
that Gore represents and that Bush does not. Gore is the one crying
wolf and telling us how we have to change our lifestyle in order to
"save the world" all while doing completely the opposite personally. I
haven't heard Bush making such claims.

Well Matt, you're quite incorrect. Please get yourself informed.

Gore isn't telling you to go live in a cave.

He's telling you that all of us need to take responsibility for the
amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. That's all. It's
just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.

And when he gets his CO2 generation down to within a factor of 2 of
mine, then I'll believe that he really believes what he is saying.
Until then, I'll treat it as the moneymaking (for Gore and his cohorts)
scam that it is.


If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
doing.

Get it? Got it? Good. Aviation-free, sorry about that.

There is nothing to get. I don't believe scams, especially scams from
politicians. And global warming as described by Gore and Company is
nothing but a scam of major proportion.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message
...
It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.


Which demonstrates that a majority of voters prefer losers as leaders.



Yes, that is the truly sad part. Then again, I don't think real winners
would ever run for political office in this country, so we'll never have
that as a ballot option. The best we can do is vote for the least
harmful loser.

Matt

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...

"Walt" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 5, 11:20 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Apr 5, 8:08 am, "ve5jl" wrote:

Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's
private
jet?

I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.

Thanks in advance

VE5JL.

Gee I wonder how much "global warming" gases he would save if he used
an empty airline seat instead. Probably one of the reasons he refused
to take the pledge to not produce more green house gases than the
average American. This guy has found a profitible industry in global
warming and is milking it for all he can get out of it.

-Robert

Hey, he buys Carbon Credits so he can pollute, guilt-free, all he
wants.

:)


Carbon Credits = BULL****!

----------------------------------
DW

Yeah. Carbon credits. Let me tell you a true story about carbon credits.

Over the last several years a friend of mine has purchased over 1000 acres
in South Dakota. His latest purchase was planted with trees and grasses last
spring, financed by the state of SD. Due to last years drought, most was
lost. The state will only plant once, after which he will have to foot the
bill himself, to the tune of about $40,000.

In a moment of inspiration, his lawyer suggested that he advertise on the
web that he is planting for invironmental reasons and for wildlife habitant
(actually, it's a land investment and for pheasant hunting). The idea is to
sell carbon credits to the nit-wits in Hollywood and like eco-nuts.

Got a grass strip that needs re-seeding?

There are people out there laying awake at night trying to figure out how to
scam these morons.