Cikomyr:
Are you not paying attention to what is going on around you? Gore is a multimillionare. He didn't get that from the salary of a Senator. He has sold millions of copies of books. Furthermore, how do you say that Environmentalist groups are strapped for cash when they can pay his speaking fees? Do you think the politicians on the left aren't enjoying huge donations from green PACs?

btw, Greenpeace took in over $165 million in 2004... not too shabby for a bunch of poor folks who just want us to care. Face it, there is billions to be made acting like they care.

(maybe this will do a double-post, sorry if it does)

And there is billions to be made bashing the topic. Do you want me to repeat the arguments, again? Once more, slowlier:

Both are politician making money out of their so-called opinions.

One receive money from the industry
The other from the environnementalists.

The industry gives money in order to SAVE money. It has a huge capital base.
The environnementalists give money in order to... further their cause? What money do THEY gain out of it? I am not speaking of those using the trend to make a buck (like Gore&Co) but those SPENDING the money for those people. What is their monatery interest? They have none.

It is a David vs Goliath situation, not because "one's right the other isn't", but because one side has an immense capital base and is willing to spend a LOT to preserve the best of it. The other simply has some public support and some green wannabe buyers. That's 1000b vs 10b.

Yeah, right, that is why Gore only expects to be repaid for his expenses getting to the where he is giving the speech. His only interest is educating the public.

Give me a break!

Well, pollution is really at the heart of the debate isn't it? The whole thing is about reducing the gases we pump into the air (pollution).

But the zealots classify Carbon Dioxide as a pollution gas, yet without it, life would cease to exist on this planet.

My personal opinion is they have gone way overboard to the extent they are now trying to harm the natural balance of nature.  Sure, cleaning up the Flouro Carbons and such is always a good idea.  But eliminating 95% of them is relatively (note the qualifying word) easy.  Eliminating the last 5% is detrimental to both the planet and man's existance.  Why?  It would require too many of the resources of man to accomplish it, and nothing would be gained by that last 5% to justify the damage it would do.

I also remember the: milk, butter, eggs, coffee, chocolate, radon gas, get some sun - stay out of the sun, color TV, transistor radios, alar, if Kennedy gets elected the vatican will relocate to Washington, blah, blah, blah scares. One from my Dad (WW2 radarman), "Well honey, the only thing is it makes you sterile - but it's for the war effort." Perhaps I have more siblings than the ones I grew up with.

Hmmmm.....sounds like you've been around the same news as I!

I believe we should all hop into our Lear jets and fly all over the world preaching about the dangers of global warming. Now that is the way to cut down on greenhouse gases.

AL!  I did not know you were blogging under a psuedonym!

I guess we should all be carted off to the bastille...wait, those days are over, or are they?!

They are making a comeback to some apparently.

Two sides. One with billions of dollars, the other as poor as Job. But the poor-one is slowly gaining popularity, even if there isn't billions in their pockets about it.

Better recheck the funding.  You will find those "tree huggers" are very well funded.  They are not just a bunch of poor back to nature people, but a growing group of people whose very livelihood is dependant upon their agenda being accepted.  And far from the starving noble people you portray.

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Sunday, October 15, 2006 Liberal Wacko Debate Outline: 1: Come up with an issue. 2: Come up with an emotional argument. 3: Find a posterchild to become the face of the issue. 4: Anytime anyone apposes the issue, accuse them of being an insensitive bigot and/or too backward to understand. 5: Repeat #4 as often as needed, as long as nobody actually looks over the facts.

And now you can add a number 6.  Threaten them with loss of life, liberty and freedom.

it is true that Kyoto only penalize the rich countries (U.S. are still the #1 world-wide polluters). China and India, while quickly climbing the greenhouse-ladder, aren't in the top - yet -. We'll get to that later..

This is a "blatantly" false statement! I think you should go look again!

Air pollution A report released in 1998 by the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that of the ten most polluted cities in the world, seven can be found in China. Sulfur dioxide and soot caused by coal combustion are two major air pollutants, resulting in the formation of acid rain, which now falls on about 30% of China's total land area. Industrial boilers and furnaces consume almost half of China's coal and are the largest single point sources of urban air pollution.

Link

Nice try....now try again!

Why is the arguments of Anti-Kyoto : "It too political, not solving the problem!".

This is actually not about Kyoto.  But to answer your question, we are being asked to patch our part of the dyke at enormous cost and little demonstrable benefits (above and beyond what the US is already doing better than the rest of the planet).  Yet our neighbors are not being asked to patch their part of the dyke.  So what will happen? We will still be flooded and all will be killed, but at least we can die knowing that our part of the dyke was patached?

Kyoto fails because it does not require the same effort from all nations.  It matters not that we clean up our emissions when the largest growing poluters are given a free pass.

I don't want the examples to become the argument here, I was just using them to show that even those who seem convinced it manmade and can be fixed are willing to allow their political allies to continue killing the planet... it's only their political enemies that seem to have to change and pay.

Thank you, now back to the point of the argument.

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Monday, October 16, 2006

Let's leave David Vs. Goliath and Kyoto for another day, as this article really has nothing to do with either.

I will ask you then:

1. Are your ideas established facts?  i.e. that Man is creating global warming? 

2. Whether or not it is established fact, are you proposing those who disagree with you be muzzled by throwing them in a dungeon or even killing them to silence them for their beliefs?

. Are your ideas established facts? i.e. that Man is creating global warming? 2. Whether or not it is established fact, are you proposing those who disagree with you be muzzled by throwing them in a dungeon or even killing them to silence them for their beliefs?

1) No established facts, yet. But no fact that the global warming we actually suffers IS natural.
Fact: Recent greenhouse emission have been exponential.
Fact: Recent global warming have been exponential. (More temperature changes in the last 5 years than in the 15 years before, more in the last 20 years than in the last 50 years before)
Hypothese: Possible correlation is 60%-85%

2) Those who disagree with us would been nice to at least understand why we are fighting this battle.
And I have to add that some tree-huggers would be nice to understand why the industry is against (some goddamn populist just don't understand how the richness they live in has been created).

I haven't came here to say "FUCK THE INDUSTRY! THEY WILL KILL US ALL!", simply to argue TIH. There Is Hope.

TIH for the industry, after some costly changes, to make a huge buck out of it. But they won't try to make a buck out of it if we don't put the insentive for it. The way Bush&Co is trying to improve the topic is, "continue as we've done before, while we research new green ways to produce power". Problem is, no industry will TAKE those new ways if there isn't any financial advantage to it. The only way it'll ever work is if they create a way that would be less coslty AND less polluting than the actual methods.

This is a "blatantly" false statement! I think you should go look again! Air pollution A report released in 1998 by the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that of the ten most polluted cities in the world, seven can be found in China. Sulfur dioxide and soot caused by coal combustion are two major air pollutants, resulting in the formation of acid rain, which now falls on about 30% of China's total land area. Industrial boilers and furnaces consume almost half of China's coal and are the largest single point sources of urban air pollution.

I haven't any numbers here, but I do know that Americans are the greatest polluter per capita in the world. You also use 25% of Global natural ressources.. You have the capacity and the potential to do way better, much more than any country in the world

I haven't any numbers here, but I do know that Americans are the greatest polluter per capita in the world. You also use 25% of Global natural ressources.. You have the capacity and the potential to do way better, much more than any country in the world

I got NEWS for you! We have done more to clean up "our" act than any other country on this planet. And just an FYI....I "gave" you numbers, you're just chosing to ignore them. How much resources the US consumes has absolutely no bearing on pollution!

CikomyrOctober 16, 2006 15:34:07

Then you agree that some who beleive as you are just too extreme. This was not an article about whether man is causing Global Warming. It was about the loons on the left who are seeking to quash anyone who does not bow to their opinion. IN other words, they have stepped over the line, and are certifiable lunatics.

that Americans are the greatest polluter per capita in the world

As a side bar, that really is a non-sequitar used by the ones blaming man. The true measure of polluters is the pollution per GDP dollar. And in that, we are one of the cleanest nations on earth. Sudan is probably the most polluted!

1) No established facts, yet. But no fact that the global warming we actually suffers IS natural. Fact: Recent global warming have been exponential. (More temperature changes in the last 5 years than in the 15 years before, more in the last 20 years than in the last 50 years before) Hypothese: Possible correlation is 60%-85%

More Baloney! Care to "try" and refute this?

Scientists estimate that mean global temperatures have increased by 0.5 to 1.0 °F (0.3 to 0.6 °C) in the last 100 years

Arctic temperatures during the late 20th century appear to have been the warmest in 400 years. Satellite data suggest that the extent of snow cover has declined by 10 percent since the late 1960s. During the 20th century, the annual duration of lake and river ice cover in the mid- and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere declined by about two weeks. Since the 1950s, the extent of northern hemisphere spring and summer sea-ice decreased by about 10 to 15 percent, and researchers have measured a decline of roughly 40 percent in the thickness of Arctic sea-ice during late summer and early autumn during the past several decades. Since the 1950s, Alaska has warmed by an average of 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Pine Island Glacier, part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, thinned by up to 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) per year between 1992 and 1999.

You uses global numbers. The polar regions are the one who will really feels the consequences on a ° level.

Here is a wiki page about temperature change in the last 2 millenium. If you need an history lesson about when the industrial period began, check when the latest peak began. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

However, you could also consider that the fact that while the # of hurricane haven'T increased, their strenght has..

One group finds that over the past 35 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 storms has nearly doubled worldwide. In the 1970s, roughly 10 of these catastrophic-level storms occurred each season. Since 1990, the number is up to 18 a season, according to Peter Webster, a Georgia Institute of Technology atmospheric scientist who led the study team. Moreover, these powerful storms made up an increasing share of all storms over time, rising from 20 percent in the 1970s to 35 percent in the '90s. The largest increases in the number of intense hurricanes occurred in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

But the zealots classify Carbon Dioxide as a pollution gas, yet without it, life would cease to exist on this planet.

It's a greenhouse gas as is water vapor in that it absorbs longwave radiation. Methane is also a large component of greenhouse gases so ease up on the Mexican food.

It's a greenhouse gas as is water vapor in that it absorbs longwave radiation. Methane is also a large component of greenhouse gases so ease up on the Mexican food.

Does that mean that Mexico is a large greenhouse emmiter too?

Fact: Recent global warming have been exponential. (More temperature changes in the last 5 years than in the 15 years before, more in the last 20 years than in the last 50 years before)

And that demonstrates the biggest hole in the entire debate. Ice core samples clearly show that the planet has been warming up and CO2 increasing for the past 18,000 years and yet people want to cry the sky is falling over 100 years worth of data. Examine the data for the past 18,000 years and you'll find identical warming/cooling spikes throughout that time span, most of which happened well before man industrialized. Many of the warming spikes were actually more pronounced than what has been seen in the past 100 years.

Instead of simply accepting the rhetoric of others as "fact" try doing a little research of your own.

Oh, and by the way, if you don't think that the environmental groups make literally billions of dollars in donations from schmucks worried about the cause of the day, think again. It's a billion dollar business.

Billions of dollars? Now, who's pumping out baloney?

Billions of dollars? Now, who's pumping out baloney?

Don't accept my word for it. Do some research for yourself and see how much money flows world-wide in the name of environmental research, activism, and lobbying. Then enjoy your baloney sandwich.

Oh, just to start you off, check out how much the US goverment gives to environental groups each year. Here's a hint: it's over 3 billion.