^^
I kind of have to agree to sentiments from the link above.
But it doesn't change the fact that what he says is the truth.
---
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html
That isn't for you GAM, since it is from a right wing fanatical site and all that.
Global warming has been proven to have been happening for a very very long time(sorry gotta close down here soon so not looking it up right now), the real question is, how much effect are humans having. I can't say we are not making things worse, but neither can anyone say we are. The real truth of it is, we need to study it more. The biggest supporters in the scientific community for human caused global warming are scientists from a field that isn't considered science yet. I will look up a few links tomorrow probably, I can't remember the name of the new field atm.
Ok last post for the night. I forgot to mention the Bush administration has been doing more to global warming than Gore has. One of the links I posted talks about Bush putting federal buildings on green power, and long before Gore himself started buying into it. Can we get a WTG BUSH! from the librals?
This same talk about green power has been happening since the Bush era (GHW Bush BTW). The article you linked missed the point of An Inconvenient Truth, as well as glossing over the point that Gore is a principle investor in the group that buys his carbon-offsets, and that he's on Green Switch Power of his own volition.... Again, brilliant... ignore facts that would detract from your argument, and don't even mention them in order to not countenance them.
Global Warming has been happening for for several thousand years (since the middle of the last ice age no less), but Humans (specifically post-industrial age humans) have been rapidly altering our climate, to a rate that is unprecedented in geological history. For every "scientist" you show that says it's merely cyclical warming trends, there's another that says human impact. The truth is that there's no discernable double-blind studies to prove anything conclusively and without bias yet.
Now, Have you GOT THOSE BILLS YET ERIC? It seems to me that if things are public domain, you'd be able to get it... until you have those, your point is moot about TCPR's fallacious information. Focus on that first, chum.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:11 AM
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Again GAM, you just seem to want to ignore fact, and spew lies with no backing, hoping someone will listen to you, it's getting pretty bad now. Gore has been on green power for 3 months only, and only after articles revealed he was using amazing amounts of carbon energy, and the same articles talk about how long Gore could have been getting green power when he wasn't. While on the other hand, Bush put Federal buidings on green power long before Gore even thought about it.
AGuSTiN, I never said Bush was doing great for the enviroment, I just said he was doing something long before Gore was, and if we look at Gore, what has he done to help the enviroment? He wasn't using green power till 3 months ago, he was using insane amounts of power for years, and that is just 1 of his 3 houses btw. He has driven SUV's since being in politics(though recently he did switch to a hybrid).
After hearing Gore used so much energy, everyone defending him said, but he's using green power!(wich was not true until very recently), now why can't we get a way to go Bush for doing at least this one little thing. If it was good enough to excuse Gore(when it wasn't even true) why not a little kudo's to Bush?
AGuSTiN wrote:Here's a good summary of Gore's power usage
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200703010001
"When you don't like the message, attack the messenger".
So true
(Also nice counter article)
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Eric Esler wrote:
AGuSTiN, I never said Bush was doing great for the enviroment, I just said he was doing something long before Gore was, and if we look at Gore, what has he done to help the enviroment? He wasn't using green power till 3 months ago, he was using insane amounts of power for years, and that is just 1 of his 3 houses btw. He has driven SUV's since being in politics(though recently he did switch to a hybrid).
After hearing Gore used so much energy, everyone defending him said, but he's using green power!(wich was not true until very recently), now why can't we get a way to go Bush for doing at least this one little thing. If it was good enough to excuse Gore(when it wasn't even true) why not a little kudo's to Bush?
So Bush tears up the enviroment as president but does green at home, and Gore tears up the enviroment at home but does good for it as statesmen. Both, if these statements above are true, means they're both "do as I say, not as I do" types.
Overall, I'll take Gore because he's convinced enough to people to more than enough reducing to cover his mega usage, but Bush could never make up for all the harm he's done with the stuff he's doing at home.
Don't take that to mean I'm really happy with any of it.
---
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030929-488848,00.html
A very interesting read, looks like bush isn't as bad on the environment as some would like you to believe. The biggest problem with the news today is too many have GAM's point of view, if you don't like someone bash away even with lies and misleading information, and if you support someone lie and mislead to make them seem like good people. Every president has done good and bad for all sorts of policies, Clinton didn't just do good things for the environment, and Bush isn't doing just horrible things either. The media with our current president just likes to blast him for some reason, even when he has done something great, the media puts some kind of evil conspiracy spin on it while reporting it.
That article talks strictly about air pollution, which mentions very few things he's actually contributed. The environment is bigger than just the air.
But it is good to know the air isn't really any worse. I just wonder how much of that is states like California taking the lead on air pollution. The article doesn't bother with the why's.
---
