The economic consequences of Al Gore (http://noteviljustwrong.com/news/8-general/62-not-evil-just-wrong-in-wall-street-journal.html)
By JOHN FUND
Irish documentary filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have stirred up trouble before by debunking smug liberal hypocrisy. Their latest film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" takes on the hysteria over global warming and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor.
The film reminds us that environmentalists have been wrong in the past, as when they convinced the world to ban the pesticide DDT, costing the lives of countless malaria victims. The ban was finally reversed by the World Health Organization only after decades of debate. The two Irish filmmakers argue that if Al Gore's advice to radically reduce carbon emissions is followed, it would condemn to poverty two billion people in the world who have yet to turn on their first light switch.
Mr. McAleer and Ms. McElhinney have put needles into the pincushions of self-satisfied environmentalists before. In 2007, they produced a documentary called "Mine Your Own Business," which told the story of a poor village in Romania where environmentalists fought plans for a new gold mine. The village, where unemployment tops 70%, desperately needed the $1 billion in new investment and 600 jobs the project would bring. But environmentalists have blocked it, claiming it would pollute a pristine environment.Mr. McAleer, then a journalist with the Financial Times, considers himself an environmentalist. But when he covered the story for his paper, he says, "I found that almost everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false."
The two filmmakers are skilled at using provocative publicity tactics. On April 22, they will hold a public showing of their film at the Rachel Carson Elementary School in the suburbs of Seattle. "Since it was Rachel Carson who touched off the campaign to ban DDT, we thought showing 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' there would be appropriate," says Mr. McAleer.
Local environmentalists will probably not appreciate the gesture and will be appalled that the school agreed to rent out its auditorium to the renegade skeptics. But somebody might point out that it's not evil, just appropriate, to hold a debate about the real-world consequences of acting on global warming fears.
It sure won't be a popular movie amoung the tree huggers but should be considered. there will be stiff opposition against it.
Stiff opposition to a film refuting global warming from a couple of clowns who took money from a mining company to make a "documentary" about how ecologically friendly a proposed mining operation would be? Who would think to question such a reputable source?
Quote from: mcgonser on April 21, 2009, 11:33:42 AM
It sure won't be a popular movie amoung the tree huggers but should be considered. there will be stiff opposition against it.
Have you ever wondered why some call you names? Just a reminder that those who do so don't have a monopoly on the practice.
I can't think of a more ignorant label than to call those of us who care about the environment in which we live "tree huggers."
Does that make Mother Nature a whore?
kind of like Michael Moores films huh! He is so far left its pitiful.
Sorry Bo that tree hugger is offensive to you, its not to me. Since I have lived in a farm community most of my life I do know about serious conservation and taking care of our planet. Farmers and ranchers have been doing that for a long time. I call people like Al Gore and his gang of California nut cakes the tree huggers. They use this serious problem for their own personal gains. Like Nancy Pelosi who is in thick with the Sierra Club and other ecology groups. They are who gets her elected.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 21, 2009, 01:36:13 PM
Sorry Bo that tree hugger is offensive to you, its not to me.
Oh .. so then I can call you an ignorant rightard?
Hey .... that's not offensive to me.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 21, 2009, 01:36:13 PM
They use this serious problem for their own personal gains. Like Nancy Pelosi who is in thick with the Sierra Club and other ecology groups. They are who gets her elected.
I wonder how many the NRA gets elected? Or Exxon?
Quote from: mcgonser on April 21, 2009, 01:36:13 PM
Since I have lived in a farm community most of my life I do know about serious conservation and taking care of our planet.
I guess that means that since I've lived in a city for most of my life, I know how to build a skyscraper. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 21, 2009, 02:09:45 PM
I guess that means that since I've lived in a city for most of my life, I know how to build a skyscraper. :rolleyes:
And I can see Russia from my front porch!
:biggrin:
I can see Cuba from mine. :yes: :biggrin:
I just looked; I can see the sun from mine! :biggrin:
I followed Pa's lead, and now I'm freaking blind. I don't suggest looking into the sun. :wink:
California tree hugger? You betcha! :biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on April 21, 2009, 01:50:25 PM
Oh .. so then I can call you an ignorant rightard?
Hey .... that's not offensive to me.
Call me whatever you want to. I have been called alot of things on here.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 21, 2009, 02:09:45 PM
I guess that means that since I've lived in a city for most of my life, I know how to build a skyscraper. :rolleyes:
What I had hoped you would get out of it, was that conservation and recycling have always been a way of life for farm and ranch communities. Before it became popular and in people sometimes made fun of it. There is no one on this earth that has a greater love or respect for the land and the earth than these people. It is not a Cause, it is a way of life.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 21, 2009, 06:32:38 PM
What I had hoped you would get out of it, was that conservation and recycling have always been a way of life for farm and ranch communities. Before it became popular and in people sometimes made fun of it. There is no one on this earth that has a greater love or respect for the land and the earth than these people. It is not a Cause, it is a way of life.
Puh-lease; any respect most farmers and ranchers have for the environment ends with their ability to exploit the land as best they can. Farms are notoriously bad for the environment, even more so with the advent of factory mega-farms. I suppose the next thing you'll try to tel us is that Gulf Of Mexico Dead Zone (http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm) caused by farm runoff in the Mississippi River Basin is a myth?
If farmers hadn't taken care of the land over all these years there would be no farms to grow our food. You always lump everyone into the group when a few do wrong. We should be thankful for our farm families and their work.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 22, 2009, 08:25:49 AM
If farmers hadn't taken care of the land over all these years there would be no farms to grow our food. You always lump everyone into the group when a few do wrong. We should be thankful for our farm families and their work.
While I am thankful for the hard work of farmers and for our bountiful food supply, you pretend that simply being a farmer makes one environmentally responsible which simply is not true and history is rife with examples. The dust bowl in the '30's, for example, had as its most significant contributing factor bad farming practices that left the land without anything to anchor the soil. When a drought hit with high winds, the topsoil that had built up over thousands of years beforehand simply blew away. Farmers have since changed the way they plant to avoid a recurrence.
As I previously mentioned, runoff from farms is also a huge problem and not only because of the aforementioned dead zone. Runoff of farm chemicals is the number one issue negatively affecting water quality in the country's lakes, rivers and streams. How many farmers do you know who grow without the use of these chemicals? Any? Is it wrong then to 'lump everyone into the group'?
It was my opinion that alot of the pollution in our rivers, lakes and water supply are from Toxic waste, chemical dumping from companies who know better. It is just cheaper for them.
As to do I know anyone that does not use chemicals on their land. Ysx, alot. Part of them don't believe in it and the other part is just too cheap to buy chemicals.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17805752
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/27/93622.shtml?s=ic
Quote from: mcgonser on April 22, 2009, 11:31:14 AM
It was my opinion that alot of the pollution in our rivers, lakes and water supply are from Toxic waste, chemical dumping from companies who know better. It is just cheaper for them.
Certainly, dumping contributes to the problem but it is not near the problem farm runoff is.
QuoteAs to do I know anyone that does not use chemicals on their land. Ysx, alot. Part of them don't believe in it and the other part is just too cheap to buy chemicals.
You might live in a farming community but if you believe this, you don't know jack about what it takes to grow crops. What do you think all of those farmers are doing pulling around tanks of anhydrous ammonia, cooking meth?
Hog Lagoons - need I say more?
I don't think burning all the garbage in the back is environmentally friendly, but most farmers I know do that. Why pay for a garbage service when you can burn everything?
I'm really proud to be called a tree hugger. I can't wrap my brain around how people don't see the impact that humans have on the world. I guess if the stream near their house isn't polluted, then there aren't polluted streams. Ignorance.
:-\
Quote from: kimmi on April 22, 2009, 05:14:16 PM
I don't think burning all the garbage in the back is environmentally friendly, but most farmers I know do that.
The way it was explained to me by my farmer daddy is "Oxidation is oxidation. That's what you get, whether you burn it, or compost it."
Lots of those tanks are carrying herbicides for low-till and no-till farming.
Quote from: LOsborne on April 22, 2009, 07:38:20 PM
Quote from: kimmi on April 22, 2009, 05:14:16 PM
I don't think burning all the garbage in the back is environmentally friendly, but most farmers I know do that.
The way it was explained to me by my farmer daddy is "Oxidation is oxidation. That's what you get, whether you burn it, or compost it."
Plastic? Styrofoam?
Quote from: kimmi on April 22, 2009, 09:21:09 PM
Plastic? Styrofoam?
I don't know about your farm, but ours didn't grow much plastic or styrofoam. Seed came in burlap sacks and chemicals in metal drums.
LOL, I'm thinking she is talking about household refuse. Having grown up and continuing to have some involvement in the farms, I can verify that yes, farmers create their own trash dumps when they can, and they burn all their trash. At my grandmothers, it was always in a 55 gallon barrel. But at my dad's, we just had a place where we dumped the trash and burnt it. We are talking everything here.
And if you go over to my grandfathers farm, you will find at least 3 areas where large refuse is dumped. Things that don't belong in a compost heap.
Exactly!
You guys are pathetic, attacking the American farmer. The American farmer feeds the world. The farmers, seed companies, fertilizer companies, farm machinery companies, etc....have all made so much progress over the past 10 - 20 years it is incredible. Without this technology we could go back to getting 30 bushels per acre planted versus the 180-200 bushels per acre. Just like any industry in our past, it was easy to go to excess and dump anything anywhere. I can assure you farmers aren't wasting fertilizer etc by letting it run-off as they may have in the past. One, they no better today, and two, it's too damn expensive. This nation was founded on agriculture.....we are probably heading back that way with all the tree huggers blaming technology advancements for gorbal warming.
Farmers always have and always will be the backbone of this country. Unfortunately the autoworkers run looks like it is coming to an end.
Which guys? I posted in this thread, and I don't recall attacking farmers. I commented on something I have knowledge of, having been raised on two farms. And my comments were strictly regarding those two farms.
I grew up on a farm, also.
Simply stating fact. No attack.
Me too, but it was just a small family farm intended to feed the family, extended family and anyone in need. I don't know that mom was careful with pesticides or fertilizer (we used a lot of compost and manure), but I developed my respect for nature from the things mom taught me. Had she known more about chemicals etc then I'm sure she wouldn't have used them (as evidenced by the nasty natural concoctions I had to take when I was ill :biggrin: )
I don't think Ex was attacking farmers as a whole. He was just saying that being a farmer doesn't automatically mean that you care about the planet. Just like any industry, there are farmers who couldn't care less.
Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing)
House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The 'celebrity' witness turned out to be Gore. The GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats 'celebrity' with an unnamed 'celebrity' of their own. When the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, Christopher Monckton, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.
'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'
Quote from: pariann on April 23, 2009, 11:36:57 PM
Which guys? I posted in this thread, and I don't recall attacking farmers. I commented on something I have knowledge of, having been raised on two farms. And my comments were strictly regarding those two farms.
DannyBoy obviously has literacy issues.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 02:56:51 PM
DannyBoy obviously has literacy issues.
That's rather a sweeping statement on very little evidence. I found one typo and one grammatical error in his post. Two lousy finger-fumbles do not make someone illiterate, Ex.
I disagree with his hymn of praise to all farmers, because every group of anything has some real toads associated with it. But the literacy of his post is excellent.
You might be getting the ideas of literacy and English grammar confused.
'Literacy' is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society
English grammar on the other hand deals with rules in structuring the written language.
You may be able to write out properly your thoughts on a given topic, but that does not mean that you grasp the properly written thoughts of others on the topic. Quite possibly this could be due to having literacy problems, .....or in other words, you just don't understand what someone else wrote.
literacy .... noun the quality or state of being literate, esp. the ability to read and write.
I believe DannyBoy's post qualifies.
Ability to read and write....and understand.
errrrrrr dduuuuuhhhhhh grrrrrrrrr ohhhhhhhhhh fffffffffff
I was just saying that myself the other day :biggrin:
Quote from: DannyBoy on April 24, 2009, 10:35:07 PM
errrrrrr dduuuuuhhhhhh grrrrrrrrr ohhhhhhhhhh fffffffffff
I'm sorry, I seem to be having some kind of literacy problem. I can see the letters on the page, but they just aren't making any sense to me. All comprehension has been lost. :wink:
I speak that language! Ddddmmmmm iiiiiittt.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 24, 2009, 09:30:37 AM
Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing)
House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The 'celebrity' witness turned out to be Gore. The GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats 'celebrity' with an unnamed 'celebrity' of their own. When the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, Christopher Monckton, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.
'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'
What is your point here, hank.?. Global warming isn't real? Manmade environmental disaster can't happen? God will destroy the earth, not man? Just exactly what are you trying to get at? That gore is wrong and should be shouted down by some lunatic? You don't have a clue about the science, so how is it you can make a point, anyway?
Just for the record, however, and for those geniuses that "lived on a farm" and have studied the problem right real good, I need only point out the last man-made environmental disaster that we seem to have forgotten; the dust bowl. Or, do you think that was just some sort of plague sent by god?
yep.
Quote from: LOsborne on April 24, 2009, 06:51:46 PM
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 02:56:51 PM
DannyBoy obviously has literacy issues.
That's rather a sweeping statement on very little evidence. I found one typo and one grammatical error in his post. Two lousy finger-fumbles do not make someone illiterate, Ex.
I disagree with his hymn of praise to all farmers, because every group of anything has some real toads associated with it. But the literacy of his post is excellent.
The literacy issue comes into play with his inability to understand that stating simply that farms do damage the environment is not attacking farmers whatsoever.
Quote from: LOsborne on April 24, 2009, 08:28:04 PM
literacy .... noun the quality or state of being literate, esp. the ability to read...
Herein lies the rub.
.....and understand.
Quote from: pariann on April 27, 2009, 07:39:39 AM
.....and understand.
Okay, okay. I
understand! I took the "literacy" remark to mean you thought DB didn't express himself well. Because, after all, whether or not he comprehends someone else's words is just a much up to the author as the reader, isn't it?
This may be why Mr. Foster repeats his points sometimes. When someone doesn't understand what he has posted, he doesn't automatically assume the reader is slow. He feels it is at least possible he hasn't made himself clear, and so he tries to make the point with different phrasing. I think that's admirable. But then I've been known to bang my head against the brick wall, too.
I was married to a guy for 20 years that could read and write just fine. No problem expressing himself. But comprehension of what was written by someone else often eluded him until he had read it for the 5th or 6th time.
Being able to read the words, and knowing the definition of each word does not automatically mean that someone will understand the context of those words within a paragraph.
You guys crack me up.
God Loves You!
Quote from: LOsborne on April 27, 2009, 07:52:30 AM
Quote from: pariann on April 27, 2009, 07:39:39 AM
.....and understand.
Okay, okay. I understand! I took the "literacy" remark to mean you thought DB didn't express himself well. Because, after all, whether or not he comprehends someone else's words is just a much up to the author as the reader, isn't it?
This may be why Mr. Foster repeats his points sometimes. When someone doesn't understand what he has posted, he doesn't automatically assume the reader is slow. He feels it is at least possible he hasn't made himself clear, and so he tries to make the point with different phrasing. I think that's admirable. But then I've been known to bang my head against the brick wall, too.
I can type really fast, and now much faster than I can think (or read). And, contrary to a few folks beliefs on here, I don't live on these boards and spend as little time as possible in the debates. All together, it creates a real problem in ensuring that I have made my point as clearly as possible and, to borrow a phrase; if I had more time, I would make my statements shorter (editorialize them down to a very concise, unambiguous point).
With time, both the content and the assumed tone in the points would be much clearer. I just don't take it, in most cases, and even let the spell cheker do my tinking for me ;>)
Quote from: dan foster on April 27, 2009, 11:34:57 PM
I can type really fast, and now much faster than I can think (or read). And, contrary to a few folks beliefs on here, I don't live on these boards and spend as little time as possible in the debates. All together, it creates a real problem in ensuring that I have made my point as clearly as possible and, to borrow a phrase; if I had more time, I would make my statements shorter (editorialize them down to a very concise, unambiguous point).
With time, both the content and the assumed tone in the points would be much clearer. I just don't take it, in most cases, and even let the spell cheker do my tinking for me ;>)
You don't say. :wink:
No one really cares Ex:
Quote from: mcgonser on April 28, 2009, 10:14:15 AM
No one really cares about me Ex:
Fixed this for you!
aren't you just the cutes little black hole of need. ;D :biggrin: :)
I think you're confusing me with your gash.
I am glad to see that a dirty, small, perverted mind is not gone, you have it all. Whats wrong Ex, not getting any? A little frustrated are you?
Quote from: mcgonser on April 28, 2009, 10:23:14 AM
I am glad to see that a dirty, small, perverted mind is not gone, you have it all. Whats wrong Ex, not getting any? A little frustrated are you?
:biggrin:
Quote from: mcgonser on April 28, 2009, 10:23:14 AM
I am glad to see that a dirty, small, perverted mind is not gone, you have it all. Whats wrong Ex, not getting any? A little frustrated are you?
You're projecting.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/IDIOT-1.jpg)
To Ex:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 10:41:30 AM
Quote from: mcgonser on April 28, 2009, 10:23:14 AM
I am glad to see that a dirty, small, perverted mind is not gone, you have it all. Whats wrong Ex, not getting any? A little frustrated are you?
You're projecting.
I am confused. I thought mcnoser was a man. ?!
Quote from: dan foster on April 28, 2009, 11:32:29 PM
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 10:41:30 AM
Quote from: mcgonser on April 28, 2009, 10:23:14 AM
I am glad to see that a dirty, small, perverted mind is not gone, you have it all. Whats wrong Ex, not getting any? A little frustrated are you?
You're projecting.
I am confused. I thought mcnoser was a man. ?!
See what happens when you try to do your own thinkin'? :biggrin:
Quote from: dan foster on April 28, 2009, 11:32:29 PM
I am confused. I thought mcnoser was a man. ?!
Her moustache fools a lot of people. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 29, 2009, 07:09:22 AM
Quote from: dan foster on April 28, 2009, 11:32:29 PM
I am confused. I thought mcnoser was a man. ?!
Her moustache fools a lot of people. :biggrin:
No doubt a real source of pleasure for some :biggrin:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/beautynap2.jpg)