# Al Gore is SO COOL!



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

First he just misses the presidency, then he wins millions of new fans with the inconvienent truth thing, which leads to the upcoming Live Earth concerts. 

Now his pothead son is busted going 100MPH in a Toyota Prius! (I didn't know they could go that fast!)

Al is like the world's biggest rockstar right now!


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Yes, its a far cry from when he was obsessed with trying to push his religion down American's throats. He has a great PR team thats for sure.............


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

And yet, I'd take him over W any day of the week and twice on Sunday.:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Well and let's not forget the witchhunt Tipper was involved with during the 80's.

Just goes to prove with the right people and cause anyone can make be a "superstar":2guns:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Ripper said:


> Well and let's not forget the witchhunt Tipper was involved with during the 80's.
> 
> Just goes to prove with the right people and cause anyone can make be a "superstar":2guns:



I'm still laughing about time he claimed to have invented the Internet! And how he got caught for running huge amounts of electricity/energy in his mansion!

They got some PR flack to hurriedly issue a claim that he had bought a few acres of rainforest to offset the carbon. Maybe he did, who can tell. Still, wouldn't it be better to buy those acres AND not waste so much electricity?

They're all the same...


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> I'm still laughing about time he claimed to have invented the Internet! And how he got caught for running huge amounts of electricity/energy in his mansion!
> 
> They got some PR flack to hurriedly issue a claim that he had bought a few acres of rainforest to offset the carbon. Maybe he did, who can tell. Still, wouldn't it be better to buy those acres AND not waste so much electricity?
> 
> They're all the same...


I had forgot about the internet thing, that is too funny. I think everyone should do their part for the environ, whether it be buying you're own chunk of the rainforest (kinda like the "I have a bridge for sale') or, like me, eating as much beef as I can to help curtail the amount of unnecessary methane being released into the atmosphere...


----------



## sysexguy (Mar 5, 2006)

A Pot filled Prius....the ULTIMATE in Green transportation

Andy


----------



## I_cant_play (Jun 26, 2006)

I hate them all...all US presidents (and president wannabees like Gore) since the end of WWII are exactly the same aside from maybe Jimmy Carter. Rich elitists that help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2007)

It's not so much the rich (if you work
hard to get to where you are), but
attainment of 'power' at all costs
that irks me.


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Yes, its a far cry from when he was obsessed with trying to push his religion down American's throats. He has a great PR team thats for sure.............


Now he's obsessed with pushing his earth-based New-Agey, Gaya religion, I don't trust a damn thing he says.

Allo! Allo! Nobody there Accept2 :smile:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> I'm still laughing about time he claimed to have invented the Internet!



...for the record, al gore never claimed to have invented the internet.

but, i'm all for ganging up on and publicly ridiculing any individual or group that cares about the planet, and people, and peace (what a stupid concept THAT is!). what are they thinking?

i would much rather lend my support to warmongers, greedy "i've got mine, jack, sucks to be you" capitalists, divisive conservatives and other "realists".

:banana:

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...for the record, al gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
> 
> but, i'm all for ganging up on and publicly ridiculing any individual or group that cares about the planet, and people, and peace (what a stupid concept THAT is!). what are they thinking?
> 
> ...


:food-smiley-004:


An inconvenient truth is worth watching, again and again, until we get it.

This stuff is NOT speculation. It's reality.


All things considered, I believe the world would be a better place now, if Gore was president.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> :food-smiley-004:
> 
> 
> An inconvenient truth is worth watching, again and again, until we get it.
> ...


It's not a scientific poll by any means but I can't help but notice amongst my friends, family and social circle a commonality about how one feels about this movie.

It seems anybody who's always been of a scientific bent hates it! Anybody of what we called in University the "artsie" persuasion accepts it as total gospel, with not just no questions asked but none allowed! There are a few exceptions but overwhelmingly it seems to be true.

Meanwhile there are suspicious rumours that many of the scientists listed as on Gore's side are of science areas not applicable to global warming, or dependent for their grant money. Some actually had no idea they were listed as on-side sources and threatened legal action to be removed!

I'm just wondering if the more of a scientific background you have the more you find Gore to be stretching things. If you don't have this background you're not equipped to notice. 

This of course has nothing to do with someone's caring or commitment. Just one's ability to wield a healthy scepticism over a scientific argument, which is the very basis of the scientific method.

Me, when I see someone like Marilyn Churley (the NDP lady) on a talk show proclaiming "The Debate is over! We're right and no one should waste our time demanding anymore answers to questions! Just shut up and follow!" I frankly am astounded! No scientist worth his salt would ever take such an attitude and if he did I'm sure in an unbiased scientific forum he'd be hooted down. I don't know Ms Churley's backgound but I've met few NDP types who kept taking hard sciences and maths in school after their bean seeds died in that jar stuffed with toilet paper in the 6th grade!

This is no shame! We all have different strengths and talents. I can't draw a stick man with a ruler and my wife has to help me match even my socks! However, just as it would not make sense to designate me a fashion guru I don't see how a politician's support or that of a rock star a la Bono for Al Gore's movie counts as a scientific endorsement. 

And make no mistake about it, global warming is a scientific issue and groups are calling for very expensive and difficult sacrifices from us and our children. Do you really feel comfortable pledging tax money you need to feed your kids to something promoted by Churley, Bono and Gore? If they're wrong, who can more easily afford the consequences?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## I_cant_play (Jun 26, 2006)

> It's not so much the rich (if you work
> hard to get to where you are),


it is about the rich and the poor too. Not just in North America but around the world. The system is designed in a such a way that economic conditions are imposed on developing countries in such a way that they cannot develop. America has been forcing this system down the whole world's throat since the end of world war II and even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union. I think it's funny how people in the US think that the way they vote actually matters. A country with 300 million people has 2 parties. You'd think people would realize that that's just their way of trying to fool people into thinking that they have a say, when in reality people with money make all the rules, control the media and so on. Al Gore is no different from Bush. The only reason Bush is so criticized now is because his invasions are failing and Americans are coming home in body bags whereas other US presidents did a much better job hiding the atrocious acts committed in the name of "freedom" around the world. As for Gore caring about the environment, you should really look into how major political figures in the US are also connected to corporations that do so much environmental damage in the country (the most obvious is Bush and a lot of people in his administration).


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The ones on Gore's side are also the ones who protested against nuclear power and prevented plants being built in the 1970s to shut down the coal fired ones. The US hasnt built a new nuclear power plant since 1978. And now they complain about what they created. The same thing will happen here with global warming. Its all part of combining the logic tree and Sturgeons Law...........


----------



## I_cant_play (Jun 26, 2006)

Another thing about global warming. Am I the only one that doesn't really give a damn if we caused it or not? I realize this may be a very ignorant thing to say but allow me to explain. People are debating whether our pollution caused global warming or is this just the last ice age still ending. What I do know is that we have damaged this planet immensely since industrialization. I also know I like to breathe clean air and drink clean water. In my opinion, pollution is bad whether it's causing global warming or not and the rate at which we pollute needs to be reduced one way or another. Having said that, if global warming is due to the last ice age ending, there isn't anything we can do about it. What I'm getting at is, is it really important which group is right? We certainly cannot undo the damage already made, but we can prevent more damage from being inflicted, which is what we should do anyway...so does it matter whether we caused it or not? am I missing something here?


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

I_cant_play said:


> Another thing about global warming. Am I the only one that doesn't really give a damn if we caused it or not? I realize this may be a very ignorant thing to say but allow me to explain. People are debating whether our pollution caused global warming or is this just the last ice age still ending. What I do know is that we have damaged this planet immensely since industrialization. I also know I like to breathe clean air and drink clean water. In my opinion, pollution is bad whether it's causing global warming or not and the rate at which we pollute needs to be reduced one way or another. Having said that, if global warming is due to the last ice age ending, there isn't anything we can do about it. What I'm getting at is, is it really important which group is right? We certainly cannot undo the damage already made, but we can prevent more damage from being inflicted, which is what we should do anyway...so does it matter whether we caused it or not? am I missing something here?


Well, perhaps a little perspective is in order.:smile:

It's important to settle the issue of whether global warming is natural or caused by man because the answer determines what approaches are open to us. Most of us would agree that that we should stop messing things up. The problem is how do we do that and still keep our lights on?

A2T has a good point about nuclear power. The green movement DID successfully block new atomic reactors! Yet we got more and more people who needed power so we turned to dirty things like coal-fired generators instead. The amount of carbon released by a nuclear power plant is a spit in the wind compared to that of a coal burning generator even with modern scrubbers, which incidently we did NOT install on the old ones!

Personally, I think it's a case that non-scientific people find nuclear scary because they don't know much about it except for bombs and things like coal ok because they can relate better. Maybe I'm wrong.

The big problem with many in the green movement is that they seem to be against ANY practical solution! They trumpet for things like solar or wind but those sources have problems themselves. Wind needs backup power available and solar is still far more expensive. So they can help but they have nowhere near the capacity to replace what we're using now. Most people have no idea how much power can be drawn from the average solar cell and what that cell costs. Try powering your stove from that backpack solar cell sold by Canadian Tire and you'll starve pretty quickly!

The biggest mug's game they sell is conservation! To hear some of them talk we can provide more power with conservation than we generated in the first place!

Conservation is really just another word for efficiency. If we waste 50% of what we generate then if we improved efficiencies we'd have more power available without building new generators.

Now, efficiency is always worthwhile but stop and think about it for a moment. First, how much improvement in efficiency is possible? At what cost?

Consider a simple analogy. We have a farm of 100 acres that is worked in a rather old-fashioned and inefficient manner. The farm feeds a clan of 40 people but everybody is a little hungry. There never seems to be quite enough food.

Now, up comes a graduate of the Green Agricultural College. He quickly shows them how they've been growing in an inefficient manner. He improves crop yields so that less effort is wasted yet produces more food. Everybody has a bit more leisure time and gains a little weight.

The next day 5 babies are born and 10 long lost relatives show up at the door and are now part of the clan! They all have to be fed!

So the Agri grad scratches his head, consults his textbooks and improves efficiencies yet again. Of course, he doesn't get the same amount of improvement as before. The first 80% of improvement is always easy but the next 20% is always far harder. 

The clan population then grows some more.

You see where we're going? You can only get so efficient. Sooner or later you need some new acres added to the farm, no matter how efficiently you farm it.

This puts the lie to the constant cries to raise prices on things like gasoline and heating fuels in order to encourage conservation. Most folks have long ago given up driving for the sheer pleasure of it. They drive because they have little or no choice. They have to get to work, buy groceries and whatever. Public transit rarely is practical for most commuters and bringing home the family groceries on a bus is a joke!

People can always buy a car with better gas mileage the NEXT time they buy a car but few can afford to make the purchase today. Yet they have to pay any price increase today! Most folks have already sealed up their windows and door frames and put more insulation in their attics. Are they supposed to sell the old house and buy a more modern energy-efficient one? 

Maybe I'm the only one too poor to do so and everybody else is more than rich enough. I dunno.

So we get bans on incandescent light bulbs. Does everybody understand how many watts of the total electricity usage in the average home is used by incandescent lamps? Do you understand what percentage is used by stoves, refrigerators, furnace motors, washers/dryers and such?

The savings are mice nuts! It's just more smoke and mirrors! It just LOOKS like the government is doing something! Meanwhile they're using this as an excuse to tax us more, pretending it's for our own good and they're going to use all the extra money to save the planet for us.

Or am I the only one who doesn't believe what politicians tell us?

Another misconception about electricity that many folks have is that it is not store-able! It doesn't matter that you saved a 100 watts from your new compact lamps on your total bill. The electricity company can't use that savings when it has to supply your electric stove. You see a saving from not having to provide a little bit more watts for old bulbs and your stove AT THE SAME TIME but that's it! You have to have enough generating capacity to handle peak loads, period. Savings must be spent immediately, they cannot be stored.

So as our population grows the idea that we can supply everyone with the power they need without ever adding new generators is just a fallacy. To think we can do it with wind and solar alone with no backup facilities is just bonehead engineering. Whether you like it or not, nuclear is the ONLY choice that will work without making everyone much more poor and hungry! We can argue about whether we should go with a British or German reactor 'cuz we Canadians can never build one one time and on budget but that's about all.

Not a single soul died or was hurt at Three Mile Island, despite all the hoopla from the anti-nuke crowd. All the safeties worked.

And if someone is going to trot out that tired old example of Chernobyl then I"ve got a Lada or a Yugo to sell them. After all, a car's a car and they're all the same, right?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...the best possible solution is to ignore the real issues in favour of name calling, finger pointing, public humiliation and ridicule, personal insults and anything else that will divide people into as many opposing factions as possible.

labelling global warming as a left wing conspiracy is a good start.

here in toronto we have am640 talk radio leading the way on all fronts.

:sport-smiley-002:

-dh


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Wild Bill you're not the only one who doesn't buy into everything the government is telling us. Alot of what they have put out in regards to this subject is garnish to salad, to make it appear that they are trying to change how we treat the environment. All of it just adds up to a drop in the bucket. I often wonder as well about all this electricity conservation they are pumping. Is it really about saving the enivronment from the coal burning plants or about having extra electricity to export for greater profit.

I don't beleive for a minute the we have caused global warming, we may have helped it along faster than it would have happened, but there is enough scientific proof out there to show that it has happened before and it has happened again, just like the changing of the magnetic poles.

The big push on smart cars and hybrids makes me wonder as well. The hybrids do not get any better gas mileage than alot of vehicles but they do produce less emissions (which is good), but why can't they do both? I question why the average north american pickup truck gets that same gas mileage roughly that ones from 30 years ago did, granted once again they are supposed to have less emissions but why not make them more fuel efficient too...the reason..profits. It would seem to me that a vehicle that gets more miles per gallon should also equate somewhat to less emissions as less fuel is being consumed.

Gore's movie was interesting, but I have also watched documentaries that are on the opposite end of the spectrum. As with most things, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"I'm right, you're mistaken, he's dead wrong!"*



david henman said:


> ...the best possible solution is to ignore the real issues in favour of name calling, finger pointing, public humiliation and ridicule, personal insults and anything else that will divide people into as many opposing factions as possible.
> 
> labelling global warming as a left wing conspiracy is a good start.
> 
> ...


Sadly David, AM640 is just following the trend. You should hear what I've been called on other boards for being a "denier"!

That's why whenever someone resorts to name calling instead of real debate I just bail. One fellow wrote a long thread about how the most important trait in the debate about global warming was "passion". He seemed to be claiming that because he and his crowd cared so passionately about saving the planet that folks like me should automatically believe anything he says.

I had a girlfriend years ago who passionately loved disco but I just couldn't accept it as the epitome of guitar technique...

Anyhow, I've come to believe that as a society we are just too dumb to handle such debate in a logical, civilized manner. There are a lot of exceptions of course but the general baseline seems pretty low. We "educate" by instilling lots of data but we don't seem to be teaching the critical thinking skills necessary to make the right choices. 

I guess I'm referring to "wisdom". Talk radio is full of negative examples of what passes for judgement these days. Ever listen to Andy Barry on the CBC? Nice guy but if he was in charge of something like designing a bridge I would never let my family walk across it! Like many in the media he seems to feel that because he's articulate he can give an opinion on scientific things like global warming, without seeming to have any sort of scientific background at all. Perhaps I'm misjudging him but I've listened to him a lot over the years and he doesn't sound to me like he could change a plug on a lamp!

Could probably pick a nice colour for that lamp, 'though.

AM640 is not my usual station but perhaps you can tell me if they use an old scam I've heard many times on the CBC. You set up a panel to discuss some politically correct issue. You make sure the guys on the politically correct side are all very articulate. You then find some opposing voices who might have equally good credentials but have irritating voices and mannerisms and often outright snarky personalities. The average viewer or listener can't help but come away accepting the PC side. The opposition might have better facts but they are presented by "ugly" folks!

All this is just entertainment, until it begins to affect taxes and prices. I'd like to clean up and save the planet as much as the next guy but when it takes money I'd rather spend on my kids (and see spent on other folk's kids!) I want to be damn sure it's money wisely spent!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Ripper said:


> Is it really about saving the enivronment from the coal burning plants or about having extra electricity to export for greater profit?


Sadly Brent, we no longer HAVE extra electricity to export for greater profit! At least, not here in Ontario. Back in the 60's and 70's Ontario had a big surplus of generating capacity and sold buckets of watts into upper New York. The price at home was very cheap and the money from the Americans helped keep our taxes down.

Then Ontario Hydro started building nuclear reactors (a good idea by itself) but ran the projects with political idiots into huge cost overruns we still pay for today. Anti-nuke people try to use this as a reason not to go more nuclear but it's not nuclear power in itself that's the problem. Other countries have been making safe and cost effective reactors for years! If we can't do the same with a Canadian design then screw 'em! We should buy from someone who can.

Part of the reason we had a blackout through Ontario and New York a couple of years ago is that governments everywhere assumed they could always buy power from someone else. Nobody built anything new! Their population and demand had kept growing and there were no new sources. So one hot summer day things kicked out. Go figure, eh!

That's also a reason for high prices, as we had seen in California in the early 90's when they deregulated prices for electricity. The politicians all thought that this would mean private business would immediately build new generating plants for them, to make the profit. Of course, any private business executive that wanted to do so would've needed his head examined! First off, California had passed environmental laws that would have pushed build prices into the stratosphere. This is the same situation that accounts for no new oil refineries having been built in years. Just too expensive.

Secondly, why invest in a new generating plant at all? If you just sit tight the demand will have kept growing and you'll get outrageous prices for the power coming from your old plant! Much more profit without a dime of new investment.

Are you old enough to remember when they formed Petro-Canada? We were all told that this would give the feds a lever on the gas business, so that by competition they could keep those evil greedy oil companies from gouging us. What did Petro-Can actually do? They bought up lots of corner gas station chains, where they were always the first to jack up the price and the last to lower it.

If the feds had truly wanted to help its citizens out they would have built a couple more oil refineries to inject some real competition into the market. Despite all the promises from our politicians to keep us from being gouged at the pump they haven't built one yet. They won't even talk about it! Everyone knows the real bottleneck is the shortage of refining capacity but nobody is making any move to correct it.

Electricity is a similar situation. They're adding a little bit of capacity at Niagara Falls but that's far from enough. What they need to do is not just a few more nuke plants but build some new transmission line corridors from Manitoba and Quebec. They have lots of surplus power to sell us but there are no wires to hook us up here in Southern Ontario. Why not give the money to fellow Canadians instead of buying from the Americans?



Ripper said:


> I don't beleive for a minute the we have caused global warming, we may have helped it along faster than it would have happened, but there is enough scientific proof out there to show that it has happened before and it has happened again, just like the changing of the magnetic poles.


Careful! You're in danger of becoming a DENIER! I have the word of Marilyn Churley that the issue has been settled and we should all shut up and do what she and the folks on her side tell us.



Ripper said:


> The big push on smart cars and hybrids makes me wonder as well. The hybrids do not get any better gas mileage than alot of vehicles but they do produce less emissions (which is good), but why can't they do both? I question why the average north american pickup truck gets that same gas mileage roughly that ones from 30 years ago did, granted once again they are supposed to have less emissions but why not make them more fuel efficient too...the reason..profits. It would seem to me that a vehicle that gets more miles per gallon should also equate somewhat to less emissions as less fuel is being consumed.


The answer is that the big 3 figured folks wanted a truck more than they wanted better mileage! So they didn't have to invest in fuel efficiency, which would have increased their costs.

So you're right that its all about profit, but I would say that they were very shortsighted. Toyota looked 10 years ahead when it brought out their hybrid. Now the Americans are scrambling to catch up! Japan made a long term investment. We haven't seen much of that kind of thinking these past few years here in North America. Every company seems too busy taking the easy way of moving jobs over to China to save labour costs. Give it another 10 years and they'll have problems finding customers with enough money to buy their products, after all the job losses.

By then however it will be a different crop of executives. The old ones will have reaped the savings and move on looking like heroes. The new ones will pin the blame on the old ones.

In the words of Vonnegut's Tramalfadorians: "So it goes!":zzz:


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Sadly Brent, we no longer HAVE extra electricity to export for greater profit! At least, not here in Ontario.


Here in Manitoba we export alot of electricity, and because of this we are fortunate that our prices for hydro here are pretty low. They are building more hyrdro dams and other products, they are also looking into the whole wind turbine thing



> Are you old enough to remember when they formed Petro-Canada? We were all told that this would give the feds a lever on the gas business, so that by competition they could keep those evil greedy oil companies from gouging us. What did Petro-Can actually do? They bought up lots of corner gas station chains, where they were always the first to jack up the price and the last to lower it.


I remember it very well. To this day around here the Petro stations are the last ones to lower and the first to raise.



> What they need to do is not just a few more nuke plants but build some new transmission line corridors from Manitoba and Quebec. They have lots of surplus power to sell us but there are no wires to hook us up here in Southern Ontario. Why not give the money to fellow Canadians instead of buying from the Americans?


I agree with this whole-heartedly. We ship mostly south, when it should be going to help out others in the country, but when the american dollar was high, there was more profit to be had south




> Careful! You're in danger of becoming a DENIER! I have the word of Marilyn Churley that the issue has been settled and we should all shut up and do what she and the folks on her side tell us.


 I'm strangely okay with this  I've never been good at being a sheep and following the flock because someone said it was the thing to do




> So you're right that its all about profit,


Profit and the potential for profit. We ran to the aid of the Balkans when they self destructed in the interest of humanitarianism and stopping genocide (strange how they have good shipping ports, minerals and more), yet we strangely forgot about places like Rwanda (which has nothing profitiable above or below ground) and seemed to ignore the 2 million people being slaughtered there.


----------



## Yerffej (Feb 7, 2006)

"Don't worry kids, it's not really Man-Bear-Pig. It's me Al Gore."


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Yerffej said:


> "Don't worry kids, it's not really Man-Bear-Pig. It's me Al Gore."



My only "Al" hero is Al Bundy!

:bow:


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> My only "Al" hero is Al Bundy!
> 
> :bow:


Now you're talking buddy. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## adamthemute (Jun 18, 2007)

Yerffej said:


> "Don't worry kids, it's not really Man-Bear-Pig. It's me Al Gore."


Guy's! I'm cereal!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

:smile:


Wild Bill said:


> Sadly David, AM640 is just following the trend. You should hear what I've been called on other boards for being a "denier"!
> That's why whenever someone resorts to name calling instead of real debate I just bail. One fellow wrote a long thread about how the most important trait in the debate about global warming was "passion". He seemed to be claiming that because he and his crowd cared so passionately about saving the planet that folks like me should automatically believe anything he says.
> I had a girlfriend years ago who passionately loved disco but I just couldn't accept it as the epitome of guitar technique...
> Anyhow, I've come to believe that as a society we are just too dumb to handle such debate in a logical, civilized manner. There are a lot of exceptions of course but the general baseline seems pretty low. We "educate" by instilling lots of data but we don't seem to be teaching the critical thinking skills necessary to make the right choices.
> ...


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Remember all the scientists that thought the earth was flat, that Bode's Law was correct, that Pluto was a planet, that found a cure for AIDS or cancer? Science history is filled with this stuff, and watch out what kind of science they are in. We have political science, social science, meteorology, climatologists. Some of these hardly qualify as scientists but are used by the IPCC to back up their claim. Sometimes people can be swayed by funding. I am on the denier side, because its the side that says we dont have all the answers. The other side says yup we do, just look at our models and theories. Models and theories arent facts. Sometimes facts arent facts. I do know we are on a wobbly rock hurdling through space with only gravitational pull keeping us in orbit. That in itself lends the fact that climate will always change, because the angle, intensity and distance of rays are always changing. You'd be amazed at how much difference 1 degree of angle will do to the climate, yet it isnt in any of their models. Neither is the impact of higher dementional forces. Its funny that we study the impact of those forces on other planets climate, but it seems odd that its impact on our climate is somehow missed in any discussion by the IPCC. It was first studied in the early 90s on the poles, but the conclusions of these studies dont agree with the IPCC so they take any reference to it out..........


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i don't really have an opinion on global warming, simply because i am not a scientist.
> 
> if the scientific community claims global warming is real, i tend to believe them. they do, after all, study this stuff. scientifically.
> -dh


Ah, but as Accept2 pointed out, there is no unified scientific community! There are scientists that disagree or agree with other scientists. True scientists welcome this, as this is how their points are examined, checked or discarded.



david henman said:


> what is mystifying is the fact that global warming has become a political issue. conservatives appear to be extremely upset that the left has attached themselves to the issue. thus, with their stereotypical "if it comes from the left it is therefore by definition bogus" attitude, we hear logic-defying proclamations like "global warming is a liberal conspiracy". credibility? :wave:
> -dh


It's not so much that the left has adopted the issue as HOW they expouse it! There is often an arrogant attitude that is definitely more ad hominem than scientific. The very term "denier" sounds more righteous than scientific. You may have read one of my earlier posts where I quoted Marilyn Churley (formerly of Bob Rae's NDP cabinet) when she served on a panel on a Michael Coren show about global warming. She actually tried to hoot down anyone who disagreed with her, saying that the overwhelming majority of scientists agreed on the issue and that the debate was over.

This statement of hers is totally dead wrong! There are a LOT of emminent and respected scientists who disagree almost in horror from the IPCC report.

So "conservative" offense is being taken on the TACTICS of the left! Implying that any one that disagrees with you must be in the pocket of Bush, Harper and Big Oil or else more simply, outright evil! is hardly a scientific approach to debate.

Suzuki walked off a talk show when the host even hinted about questions that disagreed with his gospel. Methinks he's getting a little cranky in his old age.



david henman said:


> the whole "i'm not buying the whole global warming thing simply because i don't like al gore" is just mind-numbingly transparent.
> 
> -dh


As I said David, it's not a matter of liking Al personally but rather not liking his tactics. He's about as scientific as an astrology column and given the energy bill for his mansion he's a bit of a hypocrite besides! Just because he's articulate and strikes a commanding pose has nothing to do with his "evidence" being right or wrong. Those who don't like his arguments (and they are NOT all conservatives, by any means! And I believe I've said before that I personally am not a conservative) would not like them if spoken by Buddha or God herself!



david henman said:


> but i know what you mean by the "old scam". am640, which has successfully introduced american style conservative hate radio to toronto (i like to think they are providing a community service :smile uses this tactic relentlessly: find a far left lib who is completely whacko, bring them on the show and go: see? this is what libs are like! which is tantamount to claiming that all religious folk are accurately represented by rev fred phelps, or that all catholic priests are pedophiles.
> 
> the number one thing i look for in political discourse is logic and common sense, and am640 fails the sniff test miserably on that count but, as i say, they are probably performing a community service, intentionally or not.
> -dh


Ah, but like the old man said David, their job is to "sell papers". Or in this case, to attract listeners. 

The reason talk radio tends to be anti-left is because the "right" is usually already in a state of indignation! There IS a media bias to the left! Not a conspiracy but simply the result of a bunch of guys mostly from the same background (Queens Univ or Ryerson) manning the majority of the positions of control in the media. There is a disconnect between their world view and that of much of their audience.

If you agree with such people you're not likely to get your dander up and phone a talk show! "Rightwing" guys (geez I hate these labels for people but I don't have any better) usually are unhappy with the way the society around them is operating and will pick up the phone to rant!



david henman said:


> back to global warming: there can be little doubt that humans have crossed a line when it comes to polluting the planet and the environment. to imagine that this is not going to have detrimental long term effects simply defies logic and common sense, not to mention that fact that much of the damage is already visible.
> 
> dh


Actually, many folks think there's still a lot of doubt! Not that we've made a mess but that we've "crossed the line". Mother Nature is vastly more powerful than Man. There's a bias today in the green movement to somehow brand humans as evil and responsible for everything bad we see happening to the environment. This is incredibly short sighted! There are big factors we ignore if they don't add to the "man is evil" picture and this ignorance may prevent us from coping. We seem to blame man so that we all see the problem as within our control. We simply have to do what some folks tell us and give them a lot of our money! The problems may be entirely natural and entirely beyond our control, in which case we'd be far better off spending the time and money on helping peoples cope.

We're both from a similar time, David. Do you not remember how many of the voices today were telling us in the 70's that "evil man" and his ways were going to trigger an Ice Age?

There's some good evidence and argument that they may have been right the first time.


----------



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

It's amazing how this topic is active on every forum on the web these days. When I started this thread I never meant to engage everyone in yet another dead-horse-beating over climate change (but I'm not surprised).

Just this morning I was in a meeting and the usual "how was your weekend" talk was going on. Someone says "did you watch Live Earth?" and within minutes it turned into a debate just like this one, people passionate on either side, getting pissed off!


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

jroberts said:


> It seems that certain people don't really understand what science _is_ and what science _isn't_. TraynorGarnet has done a good job of explaining scientific method on other threads in the past. Anyone who thinks that any disagreement among scientists casts all of science into doubt, ought to go back and read some of his posts.


Thanks jroberts, I read a few posts in this thread and quickly realized it was the same small group of people, making the same "arguments", repeating the same errors they were making months ago.

I just don't have the time or energy to get involved, especially since so many people don't even bother reading or addressing counter arguments/points. Thanks for mentioning my previous posts though, nice to know someone read them! 

TG


----------



## stratovani (Jul 1, 2007)

Robboman said:


> Just this morning I was in a meeting and the usual "how was your weekend" talk was going on. Someone says "did you watch Live Earth?" and within minutes it turned into a debate just like this one, people passionate on either side, getting pissed off!


Someone at work asked me if I watched Live Earth this weekend, and I told them I couldn't have been bothered. Firstly, there wasn't any acts I was interested in, and, secondly, I'm far too cynical to think that a mere concert is going to change anything. She walked away in a huff! Oh well, there's no pleasing some people!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

stratovani said:


> Someone at work asked me if I watched Live Earth this weekend, and I told them I couldn't have been bothered. Firstly, there wasn't any acts I was interested in, and, secondly, I'm far too cynical to think that a mere concert is going to change anything. She walked away in a huff! Oh well, there's no pleasing some people!


Did she think that by watching it, something magical was going to happen?


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Did she think that by watching it, something magical was going to happen?


Something magical DID happen! Did you not see Spinal Tap?:smile:


----------



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

Chris Rock said it best:

"I pray that this event ends global warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger."


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Robboman said:


> Chris Rock said it best:
> 
> "I pray that this event ends global warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger."


...of course! why bother trying to do something when its so much easier to be cynical.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> We're both from a similar time, David. Do you not remember how many of the voices today were telling us in the 70's that "evil man" and his ways were going to trigger an Ice Age?



...no, not really. i believe there may have been a few doomsayers, but not anywhere near the scale of the global warming phenomenon. feel free to correct me if my memory is faulty.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> It's not so much that the left has adopted the issue as HOW they expouse it! There is often an arrogant attitude that is definitely more ad hominem than scientific. The very term "denier" sounds more righteous than scientific. You may have read one of my earlier posts where I quoted Marilyn Churley (formerly of Bob Rae's NDP cabinet) when she served on a panel on a Michael Coren show about global warming. She actually tried to hoot down anyone who disagreed with her, saying that the overwhelming majority of scientists agreed on the issue and that the debate was over.


...meaning what? that there are loudmouths and sanctimonious, self-righteous twits among the believers that global warming is a serious threat?

okay.

on the right, it is generally accepted that global warming is a liberal conspiracy. no proof or substantiation required, evidently.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> The reason talk radio tends to be anti-left is because the "right" is usually already in a state of indignation! There IS a media bias to the left! Not a conspiracy but simply the result of a bunch of guys mostly from the same background (Queens Univ or Ryerson) manning the majority of the positions of control in the media. There is a disconnect between their world view and that of much of their audience.
> If you agree with such people you're not likely to get your dander up and phone a talk show! "Rightwing" guys (geez I hate these labels for people but I don't have any better) usually are unhappy with the way the society around them is operating and will pick up the phone to rant!


...take a listen to am640. intelligent discourse, logic and common sense are for pussies. its about inciting hatred. the targets are the usual ones: liberals, the poor and disadvantaged, gays, blacks (they usually refer to them as "certain ethnicities" but lately they just come right out and say "blacks")...in other words, all the rhetoric of white supremacists while maintaining a "we're not homophobic/racist, but!" political correctness.

i believe that conservative politics have much too offer, but this just makes me cling tighter to my hippie soul.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...take a listen to am640. intelligent discourse, logic and common sense are for pussies. its about inciting hatred. the targets are the usual ones: liberals, the poor and disadvantaged, gays, blacks (they usually refer to them as "certain ethnicities" but lately they just come right out and say "blacks")...in other words, all the rhetoric of white supremacists while maintaining a "we're not homophobic/racist, but!" political correctness.
> 
> i believe that conservative politics have much too offer, but this just makes me cling tighter to my hippie soul.
> 
> -dh


Well David, to think that AM640 is truly representative of mainstream conservative politics is as silly as thinking that all lefties are commies at heart!

It's very easy to think in terms of labels. The world begins to be seen in one of two categories: good guys and evil guys. All "good guys" are right in everything they believe. Any who disagree are "evil guys" who just want other human beings to suffer for the sheer joy of it.

I'm not sure why most human beings think this way but I can't deny that they do. We've seen it throughout religious history, where anybody who questions orthodoxy was branded a heretic and persecuted or even killed. This is still happening even today in the middle East.

Organizations, including purported scientific ones, often will shun dissenting opinions. Grants and funding are stopped. Publication is denied.

Even on a personal level we often feel a need to surround ourselves only with people who agree with us, as if the fact that someone has another viewpoint must be a threat to our own beliefs. Myself, I've always found different opinions to be fascinating. One of my customers is a man who lived in a tree to protest a highway project. I find his conclusions on many issues to be as loopy as a basket full of kittens but he's great fun to talk to! It would be very hard to put a simplistic label on him as he has an incredible knowledge of native aboriginal history and pioneer times and can freely admit errors on both sides of such arguments. He's a gentle soul who would never think of name calling as a debating tactic and would offer a helping hand to anyone, regardless of their politics. I always learn something after spending time with this man.

I'm starting to think that the problem is actually something hardwired into our brains. Take women, for instance! (Now there's a straight line!) How often has your missus or lady friend asked you "Does this make me look fat?" or says "I can't wear that because it would make me look larger".

They're really asking for help in fooling themselves! After all, you're either fat or you aren't and gussying it up will just make you look like a gussied up fat person. I'm fat! And I'd be denying reality not to admit it! It hangs there right in front of me and I don't see how stripes or polkadots will get rid of it. If I get serious about not being fat I also don't believe in popcorn, avocado or any fad diets. I'll just eat less and move more!

How can having those around me tell me lies affect my weight? No man knows the answer but if he has any brains at all he'll lie like the Devil himself when his woman asks those questions!

Anyhow, all you can do is not let things spoil your appetite, David!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Well David, to think that AM640 is truly representative of mainstream conservative politics is as silly as thinking that all lefties are commies at heart!



...a lot of people tell me that. i really do want to believe you're right.

you hit the nail on the head, bill. i haven't bought into the far-too-common belief that the world is neatly divided up into good guys and bad guys since the last time i collected a quarter from the tooth fairy.

as for spoiling my appetite: i have developed this obsession with being "politically aware". i hope this just turns out to be a bad idea. my girlfriend keeps telling me to focus only on the positive.

but hey, what does she know? she watches oprah!

-dh


----------

