http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/gore-says-bush-administration-paying.html (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/gore-says-bush-administration-paying.html)
MADRID , SPAIN (CNN) -- Former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.
During an interview with CNN affiliate Cuatro in Madrid, Gore said, "they've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act."
Gore was the Democratic nominee against Bush in the 2000 presidential election. His film, An Inconvenient Truth, is up for the best documentary Oscar.
Does anybody have ANY proof to this statment or can back it up with any FACTS??......
I would like to see it...
Oh, a conspiracy theory. No facts, but I like it. :biggrin:
can't prove it - must not be real.
much like god.
Quote from: awol on February 07, 2007, 11:09:25 AM
can't prove it - must not be real.
much like god.
That the best you got????? ;D :rolleyes:
look. yer blindly partisan. so am i. we're just on different sides.
just pointing out that for someone who scoffs at the allegations made of the bush administration, you sure throw more than your share of allegations at every democrat.
Quote from: awol on February 07, 2007, 11:59:09 AM
look. yer blindly partisan. so am i. we're just on different sides.
just pointing out that for someone who scoffs at the allegations made of the bush administration, you sure throw more than your share of allegations at every democrat.
I know, and I'm just doing my job...I'm the minority here, so I gotta throw out as much as you guys can stomach....cause, I get blasted enough as it is.......besides, it is gettin kinda boring around here, need to spice it up a tad... ;) :)
Quoteit is gettin kinda boring around here, need to spice it up a tad...
If Jesus voted in the 2000 election, he would have voted for Gore.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 01:13:06 PM
If Jesus voted in the 2000 election, he would have voted for Gore.
ahh....trying to make it a little spicier huh.. ;D
I happend to know that God did not vote for Gore, cause, the man He wanted, WON!....duh... ;) ;D
I said Jesus, not God. God allowed Bush to win to teach us a valuable lesson...and I hope we catch it.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 01:18:20 PM
I said Jesus, not God. God allowed Bush to win to teach us a valuable lesson...and I hope we catch it.
God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit...they all cast one vote, for W....the lesson was, the right man, the right place at the right time... ;)
I'll give you in 2004, Dubya might have been the lesser of two evils...but the Trinity set these demons loose on this world to teach us a lesson. It was the right man, at the right place, at the right time...to make us wake up and realize we're going about this whole life thing the wrong way. ;)
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 02:15:18 PM
I'll give you in 2004, Dubya might have been the lesser of two evils...but the Trinity set these demons loose on this world to teach us a lesson. It was the right man, at the right place, at the right time...to make us wake up and realize we're going about this whole life thing the wrong way. ;)
Very good point! :yes:
Thank you. Every now and then, my nonsense will make cents :biggrin:
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 02:15:18 PM
I'll give you in 2004, Dubya might have been the lesser of two evils...but the Trinity set these demons loose on this world to teach us a lesson. It was the right man, at the right place, at the right time...to make us wake up and realize we're going about this whole life thing the wrong way. ;)
I only slightly disagree....I think, it happened to remind us that EVIL does exist, and It brought us together as a nation, and reminded many here that God IS needed....we became a nation of prayer again, if only for a short while....but, heck, that's just my view on it.....
Quoteand It brought us together as a nation,
I think the opposite. 9/11 brought us together, Iraq is tearing us apart.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 03:40:26 PM
I think the opposite. 9/11 brought us together, Iraq is tearing us apart.
That is what I meant actualy.....the Iraq thing, to me, has more to do with standing on principal...right or wrong, we decided to go in and take out Saddam...now that it is a mess, having the conviction to see this out is the principal,...not cutting and running...imo
I guess we have differing opinions on how vital the war in Iraq is to the war on terror.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 04:07:35 PM
I guess we have differing opinions on how vital the war in Iraq is to the war on terror.
One question, did you agree, at the time, that we should disarm Saddam??
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2007, 10:20:34 AM
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/gore-says-bush-administration-paying.html (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/gore-says-bush-administration-paying.html)
MADRID , SPAIN (CNN) -- Former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.
During an interview with CNN affiliate Cuatro in Madrid, Gore said, "they've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act."
Gore was the Democratic nominee against Bush in the 2000 presidential election. His film, An Inconvenient Truth, is up for the best documentary Oscar.
Does anybody have ANY proof to this statment or can back it up with any FACTS??......
I would like to see it...
still waiting...
I thought Saddam was a horrible human being, but I didn't think it was our business or responsibility to take him out. Am I glad he's no longer in power? Yes. Would I have rather the peoples of the region stand up and do it themselves? Yes. People always complain about citizens of the U.S. wanting government handouts, yet they don't complain when we WASTE money on a region that has been at war with itself for centuries and will continue to do so regardless of whether we feel we can "save the day." This is just a huge mess and the strategy needs to be changed, IMO. Why do we feel that a stable Iraq is so important? It will never be stable, IMO, and the sooner we get the hell out of Bagdad, the better of we'll be (at least financially). That doesn't mean stop fighting the war on terror, but just reevaluate our priorities in the war on terror. Iraq was just one of many nations that sponser terror. Winning this war will not end terrorism. Nothing will, IMO. I just think (or hope) the minds in Washington could come up with a little better way to go about it than "Stay the course."
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2007, 04:26:20 PM
still waiting...
Al made the claim...burden of proof is on his shoulders, not ours.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 04:29:35 PM
I thought Saddam was a horrible human being, but I didn't think it was our business or responsibility to take him out. Am I glad he's no longer in power? Yes. Would I have rather the peoples of the region stand up and do it themselves? Yes. People always complain about citizens of the U.S. wanting government handouts, yet they don't complain when we WASTE money on a region that has been at war with itself for centuries and will continue to do so regardless of whether we feel we can "save the day." This is just a huge mess and the strategy needs to be changed, IMO. Why do we feel that a stable Iraq is so important? It will never be stable, IMO, and the sooner we get the hell out of Bagdad, the better of we'll be (at least financially). That doesn't mean stop fighting the war on terror, but just reevaluate our priorities in the war on terror. Iraq was just one of many nations that sponser terror. Winning this war will not end terrorism. Nothing will, IMO. I just think (or hope) the minds in Washington could come up with a little better way to go about it than "Stay the course."
I think, many, many people think like you, I do to an extint...but, it is much easier to see this now, than before.....It was severely miscalculated.....but, that is water under the bridge.....as far as fighting terrorism, we ARE....we are eliminating insurgents, or radical islamic militants.....daily....can we ever win..???....why not?....I know we can't as long as we are divided over here, but, If the world would rally around this, I absolutly believe we can...
Now with that said, ... this President will never see that......we need a new leader, (in two years) who can rally, this country and the world, to wipe these guy out at least to the point of where they no longer hold a threat to anyone.....but, I know many hate this President, but he has led, under amazing circimstances and has not waivered.....I do not think he is the best thing since apple butter, but, he has been the right man, in the right place at the right time....imo..
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 04:33:06 PM
Al made the claim...burden of proof is on his shoulders, not ours.
absolutly,......my whole point is, that NOBODY (THE PRESS INPARTICULAR) will never hold him accountable for saying those words...he gets a free pass....the will print it and just take it as the truth.....that is the liberal bias that gripes my ass....
Quotewe are eliminating insurgents, or radical islamic militants.....daily.
ANd at the same time, we are creating new ones for tommorrow, daily.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 04:41:53 PM
ANd at the same time, we are creating new ones for tommorrow, daily.
I hear people saying that, but, based on what facts??......How can that be proven??
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2007, 04:40:48 PM
absolutly,......my whole point is, that NOBODY (THE PRESS INPARTICULAR) will never hold him accountable for saying those words...he gets a free pass....the will print it and just take it as the truth.....that is the liberal bias that gripes my ass....
Hopefully American minds will see past the media's perspective, or bias as you like to call it, and think for themselves. I voted for Gore in 2000, but I could care less what he has to say about the environment. Like you've been saying, it's politics and as long as Gore is a politician, his "facts" mean nothing to me.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2007, 04:43:44 PM
I hear people saying that, but, based on what facts??......How can that be proven??
Well I guess we could take a survey...hell I don't know. But logic would dictate that as divided as Iraq is, there will be some anti-American ideals passed on to the next generation. I know this is a slippery slope, but it seems logical to me. But of course, this is just my opinion.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 04:47:53 PM
Well I guess we could take a survey...hell I don't know. But logic would dictate that as divided as Iraq is, there will be some anti-American ideals passed on to the next generation. I know this is a slippery slope, but it seems logical to me. But of course, this is just my opinion.
I think they are being fed in from Syria and Iran....I think for the most Iraqis are not militant towards us...they have been eliminated....that is my point that if the world would kick in, and demand Syria and Iran to get rid of these "militant" ... this war could be won...but, for what ever reason that is clear as a can be to me, and I know it is clear as mud to many....so ... :-\ :-\......who knows.. ;D
But we can't demand Syria and Iran to do anything without war...it's just a big clusterf**k. Anyway, I've enjoyed our dialouge but since it's five, I'm going home. Have a good evening and don't eat too many beans. I'll be back tomorrow.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 07, 2007, 04:57:43 PM
But we can't demand Syria and Iran to do anything without war...it's just a big clusterf**k. Anyway, I've enjoyed our dialouge but since it's five, I'm going home. Have a good evening and don't eat too many beans. I'll be back tomorrow.
Hope you had a good evening...
The negotiating powers would be much more powerful with world support, and even the threat of war to these guys with world support, could influence the people there to oust those in power and accomadate the needs.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2007, 10:20:34 AM
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/gore-says-bush-administration-paying.html (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/gore-says-bush-administration-paying.html)
MADRID , SPAIN (CNN) -- Former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.
During an interview with CNN affiliate Cuatro in Madrid, Gore said, "they've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act."
Gore was the Democratic nominee against Bush in the 2000 presidential election. His film, An Inconvenient Truth, is up for the best documentary Oscar.
Does anybody have ANY proof to this statment or can back it up with any FACTS??......
I would like to see it...
and STILL waiting....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 08, 2007, 04:28:16 PM
Does anybody have ANY proof to this statment or can back it up with any FACTS??......
I would like to see it...
As would I! :wink:
yep henry. you must be right. nobody in the bush administration paid any scientist to dispute global warming.
and o.j. simpson must be innocent.
Quote from: awol on February 08, 2007, 07:33:12 PM
yep henry. you must be right. nobody in the bush administration paid any scientist to dispute global warming.
and o.j. simpson must be innocent.
Well, I'm not a former Vice-President or a Nobel Prize nominee, but is it too much to ask, that when someone with his credentials, to maybe have a fact once in a while to support his statements...heck no, he is a oscar nominee too....shoot, he don't have to be accountable for anything he says...he invented the internet...what was I thinkin...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 08, 2007, 09:19:18 PM
he don't have to be accountable for anything he says...he invented the internet...what was I thinkin...
ooooo - good one!
Anybody have anything to support Mr. Gores accusations??....class?...class?....anybody?..... :confused:
it is his claim...let him back it up.
you can get in touch here.
http://algoresupportcenter.com/contactal.html
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 10, 2007, 06:41:15 PM
Anybody have anything to support Mr. Gores accusations??....class?...class?....anybody?..... :confused:
Are you talking specifically about the "paying" issue, or are you trying to deny the fact that the Bush adminstration has exerted political pressure on government scientists who are researching global warming?
since ya seem to wanna play...
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp/2007/02/02/1974
Right wingers offer bribes to dispute global warming
FUBAR | Friday, February 2nd, 2007 | 7:15 am | Trackback
An ultra-conservative Washington think tank with direct ties to the Bush Administration is offering a $10,000 bribe to any scientist or economist who will dispute a global warming report released today by the United Nation's top scientific panel.
Reports the French News Agency, AFP:
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which receives funding from oil giant ExxonMobil, sent letters to scientists in the United States, Britain and elsewhere offering the payments in exchange for articles emphasising the shortcoming of the UN's report.
AEI also reportedly offered additional payments, and to reimburse travel expenses.
The report, due to be released Friday in Paris by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), is likely to give a bleak assessment of the damage to the future of the environment.
The report released in Paris today blames global warming on man-made causes.
Reports The Associated Press:
Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
Environmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"It is critical that we look at this report ... as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it," said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program.
"The public should not sit back and say 'There's nothing we can do'," Steiner said. "Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."
The 21-page report represents the most authoritative science on global warming as the panel comprises hundreds of scientists and representatives. It only addresses how and why the planet is warming, not what to do about it. Another report by the panel later this year will address the most effective measures for slowing global warming.
You lost me when you said the "FRENCH" News Agency......
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 10, 2007, 09:19:32 PM
You lost me when you said the "FRENCH" News Agency......
:rotfl: :rotfl: Yur funy! :biggrin:
you said "anybody, anything".
you got any proof it didn't happen, belly up.
Quote from: Locutus on February 10, 2007, 07:09:41 PM
Are you talking specifically about the "paying" issue, or are you trying to deny the fact that the Bush adminstration has exerted political pressure on government scientists who are researching global warming?
Bump.
Quote from: Locutus on February 10, 2007, 10:54:59 PM
Bump.
I'm talking about Gores' statement... Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it....I just wondered if he had anything called Proof?.......
Awol....I don't need to prove anything....Gore made a claim...he should be able to back it up........I think if there WAS any proof, It would be plastered on the NY TIMES and leading story on every TV News in America....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 11, 2007, 08:37:41 AM
....Gore made a claim...he should be able to back it up...
THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT FROM THE START
YOU ARE ASKING OTHERS TO BACK UP A STATEMENT MADE BY GORE
I FOUND ONE
REFUTE IT
It just keeps getting better and better with this administration. Now they're attempting to backtrack on 6 years of history.
Quote
Updating Bush's spin on climate change
The White House is choosing the president's past words carefully in its portrayal of him as a longtime ally in the fight against global warming.
By Maura Reynolds and James Gerstenzang
Los Angeles Times
February 11, 2007, 9:45 AM EST
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is widely considered one of the world's most prominent skeptics of global warming. But to hear White House officials tell it, the world's view of him is wrong.
In recent days, White House officials have made a special effort to argue that Bush has always been concerned about climate change. Moreover, they say, he has long acknowledged that human activity may be a significant factor.
"Perhaps folks have not taken notice of the fact that this is an administration that's been keenly committed both to environmentalism and conservationism from the start," White House spokesman Tony Snow said last week.
Indeed, the climate around global warming in Washington is getting hotter. Members of both parties are scrambling to get ahead of each other — and ahead of public demands — to take measures against the threat.
Apparently concerned that Bush was not perceived as being on the global warming bandwagon, White House officials released an unusual open letter Wednesday contending that "climate change has been a top priority since the president's first year in office."
"Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem," said the letter, signed by John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
But the record isn't quite so clear.
The letter cites a June 2001 speech by Bush, quoting him as saying that "we know the surface temperature of the Earth is warming.... There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming.... And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity."
But the parts of the speech excised or ignored by the letter give a somewhat different impression. For instance, the citation deletes a sentence that asserts that "concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution" — a time frame suggesting that the contemporary world may have played only a small role.
Moreover, Bush's mention of the National Academy of Sciences was quickly followed by a sentence that cast doubt on the notion of human contribution to climate change. "Yet the academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming," Bush said at the time.
"We do not know how fast change will occur or even how some of our actions could impact it," he added.
Critics see such discrepancies as evidence that the White House is trying to take positions on both sides of the debate. "The president is all over the map," said Daniel Becker, a global warming expert with the Sierra Club, an environmental group.
The critics argue that Bush soft-pedaled the issue early in his presidency because of pressure from corporate interests, such as oil companies and operators of coal-fired power plants, that oppose regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They note his frequent statements that technology is the answer to the problem.
"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil," Bush said last month in his State of the Union address. "And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."
Last week's release of a United Nations commission report proclaiming that global warming is incontrovertible has put additional pressure on Bush to appear responsive.
However, despite his pledge to devote new funds to research and to support efforts to curb the use of gasoline, critics remain unconvinced that Bush truly intends to confront longtime business allies.
Bush's latest pronouncements suggest that he is no longer ignoring the problem, Becker said, but also that he is still not committed to acting.
Critics say that Bush has repeatedly pledged to take action on climate change, only to backtrack.
The pattern began, they say, in Saginaw, Mich., on Sept. 29, 2000, during Bush's first presidential campaign. While calling for greater production of oil and natural gas, and more coal mining to reduce the reliance on foreign oil, he also said that "with the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean-air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time."
Six months later, as president, Bush stepped away from that pledge, saying he had decided not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants out of concern that doing so could increase already high energy prices.
But perhaps the defining moment came in June 2001, when he declared the Kyoto Protocol — the United Nations' consensus document on climate change — "fatally flawed in fundamental ways" and announced that the United States was withdrawing from the pact. That is the speech his aides are now citing as evidence of his commitment to tackling the problem of global warming.
Kyoto "would have been economically ruinous and would have thrown a lot of people out of work," Snow said last week. "The president instead has aggressively pursued ways of trying to clean the environment that don't have to make people lose their jobs, and ... at the same time, proceed on all the major areas where pollution is concerned."
The Kyoto agreement, completed in 1997, proposed carbon dioxide emission caps for the 35 richest countries. President Clinton signed it but never submitted it to the Senate, where it would have faced certain defeat from lawmakers concerned about the protocol's impact on the U.S. economy and irked that it did little to curb emissions from such large developing nations as China and India.
Bush in effect erased Clinton's signature, removing the United States from any obligation to meet the pact's emissions-reduction goals even without Senate ratification.
At the same time, Bush sought to blame global warming on "a natural greenhouse effect," suggesting it wasn't primarily caused by human activity. And, though acknowledging that limiting emissions was one way to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases, he immediately raised issues with such an approach, saying, "A growing population requires more energy to heat and cool our homes, more gas to drive our cars."
Whether White House officials succeed in their campaign to paint the president as a leader in battling global warming may, at this point, make little difference. The energy on the issue has moved to Congress, where the Democrats — now the majority in both chambers — and prominent Republicans are pressing ahead with an agenda that may depend little on Bush.
"For years we have been frustrated by the lack of recognition, much less cooperation, on the part of the administration in addressing this issue," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a potential presidential candidate in 2008. "Hopefully, we have now turned the corner, in that there is finally recognition that the debate is over."
Link to article (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-la-na-warming11feb11,0,3374900,print.story?coll=sfla-news-science)
QuoteAL GORE, KEVIN WALL, PHARRELL, CAMERON DIAZ LAUNCH UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN, CONCERT TO COMBAT CLIMATE CRISIS "Live Earth" Concerts in All 7 Continents to Reach Global Audience of Over 2 Billion
Los Angeles, CA - Detailing a historic effort to engage billions of people across the globe, Kevin Wall, Al Gore, Pharrell Williams, Cameron Diaz, and the MSN Network today launched Save Our Selves (SOS) - The Campaign for a Climate in Crisis. The announcement was made at the California Science Center.
SOS is designed to trigger a global movement to combat our climate crisis. It will reach people in every corner of the planet through television, film, radio, the Internet and Live Earth, a 24-hour concert on 7/7/07 across all 7 continents that will bring together more than 100 of the world's top musical acts. Live Earth alone will engage an audience of more than 2 billion people through concert attendance and broadcasts. MSN has partnered with SOS to use its reach to make the Live Earth concerts available across the globe. The Live Earth audience, and the proceeds from the concerts, will create the foundation for a new, multi-year global effort to combat the climate crisis led by The Alliance for Climate Protection and its Chair, Vice President Al Gore. SOS was founded by Kevin Wall, who won an Emmy as Worldwide Executive Producer of Live 8.
"Our climate crisis is the paramount challenge facing humanity. SOS is more than a global distress call. SOS will give the world the tools we need to answer that call with meaningful action. The most important part of SOS is how individuals, corporations, and governments respond," Wall said. "Our climate crisis affects everyone, everywhere, and that's who SOS is aimed at. Only a global response can conquer our climate crisis. SOS asks all people to Save Our Selves because only we can."
"In order to solve the Climate Crisis, we have to reach billions of people. We are launching SOS and Live Earth to begin a process of communication that will mobilize people all over the world to take action," Gore said. "The Climate Crisis will only be stopped by an unprecedented and sustained global movement. We hope to jump-start that movement right here, right now, and take it to a new level on July 7, 2007."
"At MSN, we have the worldwide audience and the technology stage to help unite a global community around SOS and Live Earth," said Joanne Bradford, corporate vice president and chief media officer of MSN. "Anyone around the world with an Internet connection will be able to come to MSN to view not just the concert events, but also an extensive collection of interactive media that will entertain, educate, inspire and ultimately drive change." Wall announced 25 of the 100 top musical acts that have answered SOS's call and are performing at Live Earth. SOS is also engaging other celebrities, CEOs, athletes, academics and government leaders to engage their constituencies. Please see that attached list of 25 artists.
"More than 100 artists are performing at Live Earth and they're all headliners. That's what it takes to engage billions of people. We're not just engaging fans of the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Snoop Dogg, or the Foo Fighters and Faith Hill. We're engaging them and everyone in between," Wall said. "We've been overwhelmed by the response from the artist community and are feverishly working out the logistics for all of the bands that want to be involved. Today we are announcing just the first 25 and will soon be announcing even more headliners who, for contractual reasons, cannot be announced today." The campaign's identity is based on SOS, the international Morse code distress signal: three dots, followed by three dashes, followed by three dots. SOS is the most urgent, universal message we have, and SOS will use that signal as a continuous distress call to prompt individuals, corporations and governments around the world to respond to our climate crisis with action. "SOS is creating an unmatched communications platform to take on an unparalleled crisis," Wall said. "Our message must saturate the globe if we're to succeed, and we will. In the US, we're partnering with NBC-Universal and its networks. On satellite radio, we have SIRIUS and XM. In the UK, we're partnering with the BBC. In Japan, we have a historic partnership with two broadcast partners. We have already secured television, Internet and wireless coverage in 120 countries, and the rest are soon to come."
Wall announced that Live Earth concerts will take place in the Brazil, Shanghai, Japan, Johannesburg, London, Sydney, and the Eastern United States.
Live Earth will be broadcast worldwide on MSN, which was the first sponsor to answer SOS's call. MSN is one of the world's most popular Internet destinations, and as such will allow the SOS campaign to have a global reach. MSN has services in over 42 markets and 21 languages, and more than 465 million people around the world visit MSN each month. Beginning today, people can go to http://liveearth.msn.com and begin participating in the global movement, and on 7/7/07, to watch the Live Earth concerts. Live Earth is being produced by Control Room, of which Kevin Wall is the CEO. Control Room has produced and distributed more than 60 concerts since its founding a year and a half ago featuring Beyoncé, Madonna, Green Day, Dave Matthews Band, Keith Urban, James Blunt, Snoop Dogg, the Rolling Stones, among others. Its multi-partner network provides a global reach for live offerings through broadband, television, digital movie theatres and mobile phones throughout the U.S. and the world. Live Earth will implement a new Green Event Standard that will become the model for carbon neutral concerts and other live events in the future. The Green Event Standard is being developed in partnership with the U.S. Green Building Commission to create a way for venues to be LEED-approved.
MSN 02/15/07 (http://liveearth.msn.com/?GT1=9033)
MSN 02/15/07 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168544/)
Where's Henry?!? I miss him. :(
Has anybody heard from him? How's his son?
Quote from: awol on February 11, 2007, 09:57:27 AM
THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT FROM THE START
YOU ARE ASKING OTHERS TO BACK UP A STATEMENT MADE BY GORE
I FOUND ONE
REFUTE IT
No....the statement made by Al Gore was...."the Bush administration was paying".....that is a lie....PERIOD.
"House hearing on 'warming of the planet' canceled after ice storm."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/14/151325.shtml?s=us (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/14/151325.shtml?s=us)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/nepal.snow.reut/ (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/nepal.snow.reut/)
Kathmandu: First snow in 63 years
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2007, 12:54:34 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/nepal.snow.reut/ (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/nepal.snow.reut/)
Kathmandu: First snow in 63 years
whats that, your anecdotal proof that global warming doesnt exist? If so, you really should read up on the subject, your ignorance is showing.
Quote from: Gryphon on February 19, 2007, 01:21:01 PM
whats that, your anecdotal proof that global warming doesnt exist? If so, you really should read up on the subject, your ignorance is showing.
I have read plenty....no, that is not proof....but, simply a reminder that nobody can forecast our climate, let alone what it will be in 2100....
I'm sick of the over inflated hype of the un-proven theory that it is man's fault....
If I'm showing ingnorance, then you are showing arrogance....
QuoteI'm sick of the over inflated hype of the un-proven theory that it is man's fault....
Why?
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 19, 2007, 01:30:03 PM
Why?
because of the political hacks (Gore ) and the United Nations and kyoto treaty...I think they are doing more damage than good....quit the bs, and let's talk straight about this....it makes me sick....and it turns me off to the point, I want them called out on their crap.
I agree, but it works both ways (as far as calling people out on their crap), IMO.
Let me preface this by saying I agree that the earth goes through stages of heating and cooling. I would also contend that the earth has mechanisms to repair itself, for lack of a better term. Now with that said, I do believe in human accelerated climate change, and it's not because of Al Bore. I haven't watched his movie nor do I intend to. There's evidence that humans are accelerating climate change (whether you like it or not)and to me it is overwhelming. But I can see how other people just believe that this is a typical warming stage the earth is going through.
I hate that this has become a political issue. From what I've read in magazines and seen on The Discovery Channel and such, I believe there are a plethora of other ways to provide power to our planet that are more environmentally friendly and just as reliable. I think researching renewable resources we can harvest ourselves in our own backyard should be a top priority so we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil and thus get the hell out of the Middle East (and reduce pollution). Besides, regardless of whether we are responsible for climate change or not, pollution is bad...period, and a few environmentally friendly policies will not bankrupt the economy like many believe. But that's just my opinion.
KILL ALL POLITICIANS!!!
just kidding, only some of them :biggrin:
I think EVERYBODY agrees that we need to be responsible and pro-active in cleaning up our act....this president has enforced some good steps towards that....he is just not convicenced that kyoto is a logical way for the United States to go....and, with much reading about this, I agree.
maybe we can inflict some career ending injuries upon ALL politicans... ;D
Quotehe is just not convicenced that kyoto is a logical way for the United States to go.
Isn't that because China and India wouldn't sign it? I read that somewhere.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 19, 2007, 04:14:09 PM
Isn't that because China and India wouldn't sign it? I read that somewhere.
that and along with the fact it would ruin not only our economy but the worlds economy....
And to me, that's why we should invest in research of more envirnmentally friendly ways to produce stuff. We can save the earf without all the economic doomsday theories.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 19, 2007, 04:19:08 PM
And to me, that's why we should invest in research of more envirnmentally friendly ways to produce stuff. We can save the earf without all the economic doomsday theories.
can we have another 'amen' for brother IYT!!!... ;D ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2007, 03:50:09 PM
...this president has enforced some good steps towards that...
let's hear 'em
Twenty In Ten: Strengthening America's Energy Security
During his State of the Union Address, President Bush Asked Congress And America's Scientists, Farmers, Industry Leaders, And Entrepreneurs To Join Him In Pursuing The Goal Of Reducing U.S. Gasoline Usage By 20 Percent In The Next Ten Years – Twenty In Ten. For too long, our Nation has been dependent on oil. America's dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists – who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.
America Will Reach The President's Twenty In Ten Goal By:
* Increasing The Supply Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels By Setting A Mandatory Fuels Standard To Require 35 Billion Gallons Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels In 2017 – Nearly Five Times The 2012 Target Now In Law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use.
* Reforming And Modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards For Cars And Extending The Current Light Truck Rule. In 2017, this will reduce projected annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons, a further 5 percent reduction that, in combination with increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels, will bring the total reduction in projected annual gasoline use to 20 percent.
The President's Plan Will Help Confront Climate Change By Stopping The Projected Growth Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Cars, Light Trucks, And SUVs Within 10 Years.
The President's Plan To Strengthen America's Energy Security Also Includes:
* Stepping Up Domestic Oil Production In Environmentally Sensitive Ways.
* Doubling The Current Capacity Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) To 1.5 Billion Barrels By 2027.
Reducing Gasoline Consumption Through The Growth Of Alternative Fuel Sources
The President's Plan Calls For Facilitating The Growth Of Renewable And Alternative Fuel Sources By Increasing The Size And Expanding The Scope Of The Current Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
* The RFS, established by the President and Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, has contributed to the rapid acceleration of the development and use of renewable fuels. Significant ongoing technological advances have made it possible to increase and expand the standard to displace even larger volumes of gasoline.
* Under current law, fuel blenders must use 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2012.
* Under the President's proposal, the fuel standard will be set at 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017. This will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use in 2017. The President's proposal will also increase the scope of the current Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), expanding it to an Alternative Fuel Standard (AFS).
o The Alternative Fuel Standard will include sources such as corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, butanol, hydrogen, and alternative fuels.
* The increased standard will contain multiple "safety valves."
o The EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy will have authority to waive or modify the standard if they deem it necessary, and the new fuel standard will include an automatic "safety valve" to protect against unforeseen increases in the prices of alternative fuels or their feedstocks.
* American Technology And Innovation Will Lead To Energy Security. President Bush believes our scientists, farmers, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders will continue to lead the world in developing and investing in cutting-edge technology, infrastructure, and farming methods. Advances in many fields will play an important role, such as continued improvement in crop yields, optimization of crops and cellulosic materials as fuel feedstock, and cost reduction in the production of cellulosic ethanol and other alternative fuels. The increased and expanded fuel standard creates a tremendous incentive for research, development, and private investment into alternatives to oil.
* Global Production Of Alternative Fuels Helps Us Reach Our Goal And Increases Our Energy Security. The President expects most of the expanded fuel standard to be met with domestically-produced alternative fuels. However, importing alternative fuels also increases the diversity of fuel sources, which further increases our energy security.
* The President's Plan Enables America To Lead The World To Energy Security. By establishing such a visible and ambitious fuel standard, America's global leadership will help encourage our friends and allies to consider similar policies. Actions by America's friends and allies to increase their production of oil and oil alternatives, diversify their supplies, reduce their consumption, and increase their oil reserves will enhance the energy security of America and the rest of the world. Conversely, foreign actions that undermine free, open, and competitive markets for trade and investment in energy supplies diminish the energy security of America and the world. This is why America opposes the political manipulation of oil and gas exports.
Reducing Gasoline Consumption Through Increasing Vehicle Efficiency
The President's CAFE Plan Will Reduce Gasoline Consumption By Up To 8.5 Billion Gallons Per Year In 2017. The President's plan calls for reforming and increasing CAFE standards for cars, and for further increasing light truck and SUV standards. The President believes new technologies can be deployed to significantly improve fuel economy without impacting safety. Reducing projected consumption by up to 8.5 billion gallons in 2017 means a 5 percent reduction in projected gasoline consumption in that year. The fuel efficiency standard will have even larger benefits later, when consumers replace even more of the auto fleet with purchases of the more efficient new vehicles. These amounts are based on an assumption that on average, fuel efficiency standards for both light trucks and passenger cars are increased 4 percent per year, beginning in Model Year 2010 for cars and Model Year 2012 for light trucks. Given the changing nature of the marketplace for both cars and light trucks, the Secretary of Transportation will determine the actual standard and fuel savings in a flexible rulemaking process.
* Congress Must Reform CAFE For Passenger Cars. The Administration has twice increased CAFE standards for light trucks using an attribute-based method. An attribute-based system (for example, a size-based system) reduces the risk that vehicle safety is compromised, helps preserve consumer choice, and helps spread the burden of compliance across all product lines and manufacturers. Congress should authorize the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same kind of attribute-based method to passenger cars.
* Congress Should Not Legislate A Particular Numeric Fuel Economy Standard. The Secretary of Transportation should be given the authority to set the fuel standard, based on cost/benefit analysis, using sound science, and without impacting safety.
* The President's Plan Incorporates Flexibility To Minimize Consumer Costs And Increase Consumer Benefits. The plan will enable auto companies to increase fuel economy at the lowest possible cost to consumers by building flexibility into the CAFE standard for both cars and light trucks, such as giving companies the opportunity to buy and sell CAFE credits.
The President's Plan Calls For The U.S. Department Of Transportation (DOT) To Work With States And Cities To Explore Ways To Reduce Traffic Congestion, Help Save Fuel, And Reduce Commute Times. In 2003, drivers in America's 85 most congested urban areas experienced 3.7 billion hours of travel delay and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of fuel, costing a total of $63 billion.
* The President's Budget Redirects DOT Funds To A New $175 Million Highway Congestion Initiative For State And Local Governments To Demonstrate Innovative Ideas For Curbing Congestion. These ideas include congestion pricing, commuter transit services, commitments from employers to expand work schedule flexibility, and faster deployment of real-time traffic information. In one year, this wasted fuel accounts for more than 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
Stepping Up Domestic Oil Production In Environmentally Sensitive Ways
The President Calls For Stepping Up Domestic Oil Production In Environmentally Sensitive Ways By:
* Continuing to support Congressional action to authorize environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration in a small area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge located in northern Alaska, which could produce as much as 1 million barrels of oil per day – Congress reserved this small area after the late 1970s oil shocks to help prevent future ones.
* Continuing to work with Congress to develop legislation to encourage investments in refinery capacity.
* Continuing to encourage all parties to resolve remaining issues regarding the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
Doubling The Current Capacity Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The President Proposes Doubling The Current Capacity Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) To 1.5 Billion Barrels By 2027. The SPR's purpose is to provide the United States with an emergency inventory of oil, an insurance policy in the event of a severe supply disruption, such as from a natural disaster or a terrorist attack in the energy supply chain. Doubling the SPR alone will provide approximately 97 days of net oil import protection, enhancing America's ability to respond to potential oil disruptions.
* The SPR Is Currently At 691 Million Barrels And, Due To Increased Consumption, This Represents Only 55 Days Of Net Oil Imports. In 1985, the SPR, with 493 million barrels of oil, represented 118 days of net oil imports.
Our Nation Has Already Made Great Progress In Strengthening Our Energy Security
Technology Has Enabled Us To Make Significant Progress. We need to continue with important research into plug-in and advanced hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of high efficiency clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol and other biofuels. We must further expand the use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power.
Including The 2008 Budget, The Federal Government Will Have Spent $15 Billion Since 2001 To Develop Cleaner, Cheaper, More Efficient, And More Reliable Energy Sources.
The President Signed The Gulf Of Mexico Energy Security Act To Increase Domestic Oil And Gas Production By Allowing Access To Key Portions Of America's Outer Continental Shelf. This allows access to areas with potential resources of more than 1 billion additional barrels of oil and nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The President's Plan Enables Us To Further Enhance Our Energy Security
Technology Will Help Diversify America's Energy Supply. America is close to technological breakthroughs that will decrease our oil dependency, protect our environment, and help us confront the serious challenge of global climate change. The President's new proposals build upon the advances made possible by the Administration's previous initiatives, including the Advanced Energy Initiative, American Competitiveness Initiative, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Energy Security Will Be Further Enhanced By:
* Increasing The Transportation Sector's Energy Diversity. Increasing renewable and alternative fuels used in automobiles from 3 percent in 2006 to 15 percent in 2017 can give drivers a built-in defense against supply disruptions and high gasoline prices.
* Increasing The Supply Of Oil Alternatives And Reducing Oil Demand. The President's plan will reduce our oil consumption by 10 percent in 2017, or 2 million barrels per day. Increasing the supply of oil alternatives and reducing oil demand could slow the growth of oil prices and lower the price over time, increasing our energy security.
* Building Resilience Through Doubling The Current Capacity Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Uninterrupted oil supply is critical to our energy security. Increasing oil reserves strengthens our ability to respond to oil shortages and reduces our vulnerability to terrorist attacks on energy supplies and infrastructure.
The President's 2008 Budget Continues Robust Funding For Advanced Energy Technologies That Can Help Reduce Our Dependence On Foreign Oil And Provide Clean, Lower Carbon Energy To Change The Way We Power Our Homes And Businesses. The 2008 budget includes nearly $2.7 billion for the Advanced Energy Initiative, an increase of 26 percent above the 2007 request and 53 percent above 2006. The 2008 budget provides $179 million for the President's Biofuels Initiative, an increase of $29 million (19 percent) compared to the 2007 budget. The President's Biofuels Initiative aims to accelerate cost reduction and commercial development of cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from abundant biomass materials, including agricultural waste and forest residues, and from dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass.
The President's Farm Bill Proposal Will Include More Than $1.6 Billion Of Additional New Funding Over Ten Years For Energy Innovation, Including Bio-Energy Research, Energy Efficiency Grants, And $2 Billion In Loans For Cellulosic Ethanol Plants.
The Administration's Ongoing Energy Policy
The Administration's 2001 National Energy Plan Provided A Blueprint For Diversifying And Conserving Our Energy Resources To Increase Our Energy Security.
* Energy Policy Act Implementation: In August 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was a significant first step towards achieving greater energy security. Among its many achievements, the Energy Policy Act established the Renewable Fuel Standard that has increased the use of biofuels; provided incentives for renewable energy, clean coal, and advanced nuclear energy; and instituted mandatory reliability rules for the electricity grid and promoted investment in transmission upgrades.
* Advanced Energy Initiative: Building upon the Energy Policy Act's clean energy foundation, the President announced the Advanced Energy Initiative in the 2006 State of the Union Address. The Advanced Energy Initiative focuses on increasing R&D to encourage technological breakthroughs in the transportation and power sectors that will diversify our resource portfolio and reduce our dependence on foreign oil in order to strengthen our energy security. The Advanced Energy Initiative also incorporates the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, aimed at reducing proliferation risks while expanding availability of clean, safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy.
The President's Plan Enables Us To Further Protect Our Environment
The President's Plan Will Help Confront Climate Change By Stopping The Projected Growth Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Cars, Light Trucks, And SUVs Within 10 Years.
* By 2017, the renewable fuel and fuel efficiency components of the plan would cut annual emissions from cars and light trucks by as much as 10 percent, about 175 million metric tons – equal to zeroing out the annual emissions of 26 million automobiles.
* The plan could cumulatively prevent the buildup of more than 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
The President's Plan Will Help Improve Public Health By Significantly Reducing Carbon Monoxide Emissions And Cancer-Causing Benzene Emissions.
The Administration Is Taking Action To Address Climate Change And Improve Air Quality And Human Health:
* The Administration's Commitment: The President has set a target of cutting our greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through the year 2012 and his budgets have devoted nearly $29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs.
* Asia-Pacific Partnership On Clean Development And Climate: Launched the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, in concert with partners Australia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea, representing 50 percent of the world's economy. The Partnership is accelerating investment and opening markets for cleaner, more efficient technologies, goods, and services while fostering sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. Nearly 100 programs and actions are underway in eight public-private task forces: aluminum, building and appliances, cement, cleaner fossil energy, coal mining, power generation and transmission, renewable energy and distributed generation, and steel.
* Working With G-8 Leaders: Worked with G-8 leaders on a wide range of initiatives, including the 2005 launch of the G-8 Gleneagles Plan of Action for Climate Change, Clean Energy, and Sustainable Development, which encompasses more than 50 practical, results-oriented actions to address the interlinked issues of energy security and access, air pollution control, and climate change.
* International Technology Partnerships: Launched and actively contributed to major international technology partnerships to share breakthroughs and advances in fusion, hydrogen, next-generation nuclear power, renewable energy, energy efficiency, capture and underground storage of carbon dioxide emissions, and profitable capture of methane emissions from coal mines, landfills, inefficient oil and gas systems, and agricultural operations.
* Cooperation With Private Industry: Obtained specific commitments from 14 industrial sectors and the Business Roundtable, led by more than 100 major corporations, to address greenhouse gas emissions in partnership with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency.
* Advancing Lower Carbon, Clean Coal Technologies: Awarded nearly $1 billion in tax credits last year, and will award $650 million more this year, to help offset the cost of nearly $10 billion in total investment to build more than nine highly efficient, advanced coal projects in at least nine states, using technology that cuts emissions through efficiency and holds the promise of cost-effective carbon capture and storage. This experience will culminate in 2012 with the construction of the $1 billion FutureGen demonstration power plant, a public-private international partnership to build the world's first coal-fired power plant that produces electricity and hydrogen with nearly zero-emissions. The Administration is also pursuing large-scale tests in the United States designed to advance carbon sequestration technologies which can have the potential to store more than 600 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of more than 200 years of emissions from energy sources in the United States.
* Clean Air Interstate And Clean Air Mercury Rules: Issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) to require power plants in the Eastern part of the United States to cut their emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and – for the first time – mercury, by nearly 70 percent, producing significant improvements to air quality, human health, and natural resources.
* Clear Skies: Proposed Clear Skies legislation to authorize in law the administrative changes of CAIR and CAMR and provide more flexible, more cost-effective, and nationwide application of the regulations.
* New Source Review: Proposed reforms to the New Source Review (NSR) program to eliminate regulatory uncertainty for power plants, refineries, and manufacturing facilities that want to improve efficiency, pollution control, and reliability. In the power sector, NSR reform will allow immediate efficiency investments and significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions, even as the power plants invest about $50 billion over the next 15 years to cut their pollution to satisfy the new clean air regulations.
Ten factoids from Neil Boortz:
1. The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
2. Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
3. And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
4. Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
5. Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
6. And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
7. Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
8. The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
9. Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
10. And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?
On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2007, 09:58:23 PM
Ten factoids from Neil Boortz:
His educational background being in ... what? What qualifies his opinion more than say yours or mine? This is a man that has been quoted to say that "the Big Bang Theory" is "two people having sex." :-\
If you're trying to find material to support your argument, you may want to choose someone w/at least a minimal scientific background. :yes:
Quote from: MsMojo on February 19, 2007, 10:07:32 PM
His educational background being in ... what? What qualifies his opinion more than say yours or mine? This is a man that has been quoted to say that "the Big Bang Theory" is "two people having sex." :-\
If you're trying to find material to support your argument, you may want to choose someone w/at least a minimal scientific background. :yes:
Like Al Gore???????????..........the man that invented the internet? ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2007, 10:16:14 PM
Like Al Gore???????????..........the man that invented the internet? ;D
Unlike Al Gore who has:
QuoteWhile a Representative, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978-79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s.[50] While a senator working on his book Earth in the Balance, Gore had traveled around the world on numerous fact-finding missions. During Gore's tenure as Vice President, he was a proponent for environmental protection. On Earth Day 1994, Gore launched the worldwide GLOBE program, an innovative hands-on, school-based education and science activity that made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment and contribute research data for scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Environment)
Now, what does Boortz have?
Quote from: MsMojo on February 19, 2007, 10:25:34 PM
Unlike Al Gore who has:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Environment)
Now, what does Boortz have?
common sense! ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2007, 10:31:14 PM
common sense! ;D
If it's common to you then that explains a lot. :biggrin:
Quote from: MsMojo on February 19, 2007, 10:34:46 PM
If it's common to you then that explains a lot. :biggrin:
ouch!!...
Quote1. The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
So we know this for a fact, but we can't come to consensus about global warm...I mean human accelerated climate change?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2007, 04:21:26 PM
can we have another 'amen' for brother IYT!!!... ;D ;)
Don't ya see? All these "brain damaging" hallucinogenic drugs I've done over the years have shown me the way. I should be the POTUS. In fact, I should be the LOTEW. Of course I'd be assassinated within a day, but what is one life lost compared to billions saved. Praise pscylocibin. Don't listen to Gore, listen to Terrence McKenna, listen to Timothy Leary, listen to your heart. (Jeez I'm an idiot) :biggrin:
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 20, 2007, 09:33:17 AM
Don't ya see? All these "brain damaging" hallucinogenic drugs I've done over the years have shown me the way. I should be the POTUS. In fact, I should be the LOTEW. Of course I'd be assassinated within a day, but what is one life lost compared to billions saved. Praise pscylocibin. Don't listen to Gore, listen to Terrence McKenna, listen to Timothy Leary, listen to your heart. (Jeez I'm an idiot) :biggrin:
you got me laughin tooo early this morning....people are walking past my office with a funny look... :biggrin: ;D
Quotepeople are walking past my office with a funny look
Welcome to my world.
They did that a lot when I ate broccoli and beans.
:biggrin:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2007/02/21/al_gores_recycled_doom (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2007/02/21/al_gores_recycled_doom)
a clip from the above article:
Ehrlich was back on NBC in January 1990 to sell his "inconvenient truth" line again. This time, he gave a more concrete timeline. Antarctica's ice sheets were slipping, and then "we'll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable."
It's been almost twenty years, we never cut our energy use in half, and Florida is still above water, not to mention Washington and Los Angeles. We have yet to tie our boats to the Washington Monument. But the media are still handing over their microphones and their accolades to panicky predictions, with no apparent expectation that anyone will ever question their accuracy in a decade or two. How many decades do we wait to question these predictions?
QuoteHow many decades do we wait to question these predictions?
Aren't they already being questioned? Now so more than ever, as long as I can remember at least.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 21, 2007, 08:56:48 AM
How many decades do we wait to question these predictions?
at least as many as you want us to wait for people marrying dogs, wmds, ... :biggrin:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E= (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=)
Climatologist Calls Gore's Oscar Nominated Film 'Science Fiction'...
The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland's 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.
Where's the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker's Summary from the United Nations' much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore's film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.
SO GIVE HIM AN ACADEMY AWARD!!... :rolleyes: ;D
QuoteClimatologist Calls Gore's Oscar Nominated Film 'Science Fiction'...
Yea, but climatologists disagree with each other all the time...you can't trust 'em. :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 25, 2007, 05:17:42 PM
Climatologist Calls Gore's Oscar Winning Film 'Science Fiction'...
ftfy :biggrin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAggxIECe5M&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAggxIECe5M&mode=related&search=)
a message from al gore...
i forgot how funny this was.........