An Inconvenient Truth - Moved From The Motion Picture Forum

[Lincsong]

The climate is constantly changing. I'm not going to worry about something that is so large and complex. There is an agenda behind those who, like Al Gore, want to rule over others. Big bad oil companies? Give me a break! How many people does Exxon employee compared to Al Gore? How many mortagages are being paid and children being fed because of Exxon compared to Al Gore? I'm going to place more weight on the facts coming from an Exxon funded scientist because he's following through on his research, unlike Al Gore who looks at Antarctica in 2002 and says "lookie that it's melting".

Regardless of whether Antarctica was gaining ice between 1992 and 2003, all of the following are true;
1.) Measures of Antarctica's total ice mass exist only for the last three years, a period too short to prove the existence of a climate trend;
2.) natural phenomena can be invoked to explain a significant portion of observed ice-cap melting;
3.)the evidence does not establish that sea levels will rise to a dangerous level in the foreseeable future;
4. CO2 caps along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol would have a negligible effect on climate.
Jason Lee Shorts
National Review July 3, 2006 pg. 2

 

[airfrogusmc]

Whether there is global warming or not shouldn't we all be trying to better conserve or natural resources? We can no longer afford to live in a manner that everything will last forever. Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist. To me this isn't a red or a blue problem or even just an American problem. We are a very spoiled generation. Our parents and grandparents knew the meaning of sacrifice. When they went to war they all tried to help in some way. We on the other hand all know our dependency on oil and this dependency is not helping our situation in the middle east and yet we won't give up our gas guzzling vehicles. We expect the other guy to make the sacrifice. Our parents didn't behave in this manor. Also big oil is not only racking in RECORD profits but are getting 14 billion in tax breaks this year alone. Hard to feel sorry for those guys,. My business didn't get any tax breaks last year. Where is their patriotism? Seems to be NO sacrifice in big oil. So I guess as long as you're making big $$$$ and employing allot of folks just rock on. Those philosophies were working for a while at Enron.

Instead of working together to find solutions when someone raises a concern about a problem like the environment they are a pot smoking neo-hippy (where would that put ole Teddy Roosevelt) or if your a little to the right you a right winged natonalist Nazi. We should all be outraged right left and everything in between at the way big businees has a strangle hold on our government with big oil being just one component.

 

[Terry Lennox]

I'm going to place more weight on the facts coming from an Exxon funded scientist because he's following through on his research,

I guess I never thought of it as such.

If cigarette companies tell me smoking isn't bad for me then I guess I should just light up because I'm sure they're looking out for my health and not the bottom line much more than say that evil american lung association....

Thanks Lincsong for showing me the way!

 

[jake431]

I'm going to place more weight on the facts coming from an Exxon funded scientist because he's following through on his research...

Lincsong, can you explain what you mean here? "Following through on his research"? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Thanks,
-Jake

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

 

[LizzieMaine]

My thoughts on this whole subject? Once again, we need common sense and not political posturing. Is there anyone, regardless of politics who *doesn't* think developing alternative sources of energy and pursuing conservation of existing resources are good ideas? I'd like to think that most people, regardless of where they stand politically, have that level of common sense.

The whole idea that *science* has become politicized is a symptom of everything that's wrong with the present day political discourse -- an age when party hacks, paid PR flacks, talking-pointers, think-tank shills, dittoheads, tree-hugging exhibitionists and cable-tv screamers are more important in setting the national scientific agenda than, you know, actual independent scientists. The sooner both sides in the global warming debate stop the partisan foolishness and start looking at the issue as something that's bigger than nations, beliefs, politics, or any of us, the better off we're all going to be.

Meanwhile, I sit here wondering how much longer I can afford to pay $140 a month for oil and $3 a gallon for gas...

 

[jake431]

My thoughts on this whole subject? Once again, we need common sense and not political posturing. Is there anyone, regardless of politics who *doesn't* think developing alternative sources of energy and pursuing conservation of existing resources are good ideas? I'd like to think that most people, regardless of where they stand politically, have that level of common sense.

The whole idea that *science* has become politicized is a symptom of everything that's wrong with the present day political discourse -- an age when party hacks, paid PR flacks, talking-pointers, think-tank shills, dittoheads, tree-hugging exhibitionists and cable-tv screamers are more important in setting the national scientific agenda than, you know, actual independent scientists. The sooner both sides in the global warming debate stop the partisan foolishness and start looking at the issue as something that's bigger than nations, beliefs, politics, or any of us, the better off we're all going to be.

Meanwhile, I sit here wondering how much longer I can afford to pay $140 a month for oil and $3 a gallon for gas...

I agree with you, ideally, yes that would be the case. But who's going to give up their SUV first? Who's going to stop driving to work alone or take public transportation? Or demand that sufficent public transportation is constructed, even with tax dollars if need be?


However I do disagree - Science has always been political. Look at how Oppenheimer was treated by politicians for not supporting Nuclear proliferation as a means to National Security, or how Gallileo was treated for saying that the sun was the center of the solar system (I think it's fair to treat the Papacy as a Political institution in this case, especially given the time the controversy took place). Anyway, my point is - science gets politicized when it challenges or maintains the status quo in the face of crisis.

-Jake

 

[Marc Chevalier]

But who's going to give up their SUV first?

I don't have an SUV, but I'd be glad to give up someone else's. [angel]

.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I agree with you, ideally, yes that would be the case. But who's going to give up their SUV first? Who's going to stop driving to work alone or take public transportation? Or demand that sufficent public transportation is constructed, even with tax dollars if need be?

Absolutely. It's one thing to talk the talk, and quite another to walk the walk. Personally, I try to do the latter -- both out of conviction and because, well, I can't afford to do anything else. I don't own an SUV, I drive as little as possible, I walk or ride my bike whenever I can, and I would gladly see my tax money go toward rebuilding the trolley that used to exist in my town, and would be the first one on board if they did. Not because I'm trying to make a political point, but because all those things make sense to me.

And that's the thing -- too often even simple things like those become political statements rather than simple acts of common sense. There's people who drive around in Priuses who love to act all self-righteous around those who don't -- and there's people who deliberately go out and buy the biggest, baddest, gas-wastingest truck they can find just so they can slap a Calvin-peeing-on-Al-Gore sticker up in the back window. And both those types of people are exactly the kind of idiots who are turning the whole global-warming issue into a useless political circus. A pox upon them all.

However I do disagree - Science has always been political. Look at how Oppenheimer was treated by politicians for not supporting Nuclear proliferation as a means to National Security, or how Gallileo was treated for saying that the sun was the center of the solar system (I think it's fair to treat the Papacy as a Political institution in this case, especially given the time the controversy took place). Anyway, my point is - science gets politicized when it challenges or maintains the status quo in the face of crisis.

True enough. And it's interesting that those who are most rabid in the politicizing usually end up on the negative end of history's judgement. Something to think about there for both sides, I'd suggest.

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

I drive a Cadillac Escalade, my wife drives a Hummer.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I drive a Cadillac Escalade, my wife drives a Hummer.

And my Bonny lies over the ocean.

.

 

[jake431]

I drive a Cadillac Escalade, my wife drives a Hummer.

Write that down and put it in a time capsule so when your grandchildren run out of fossil fuels, they know a small part of the reason why.

-Jake

 

[jake431]

Absolutely. It's one thing to talk the talk, and quite another to walk the walk. Personally, I try to do the latter -- both out of conviction and because, well, I can't afford to do anything else. I don't own an SUV, I drive as little as possible, I walk or ride my bike whenever I can, and I would gladly see my tax money go toward rebuilding the trolley that used to exist in my town, and would be the first one on board if they did. Not because I'm trying to make a political point, but because all those things make sense to me.

And that's the thing -- too often even simple things like those become political statements rather than simple acts of common sense. There's people who drive around in Priuses who love to act all self-righteous around those who don't -- and there's people who deliberately go out and buy the biggest, baddest, gas-wastingest truck they can find just so they can slap a Calvin-peeing-on-Al-Gore sticker up in the back window. And both those types of people are exactly the kind of idiots who are turning the whole global-warming issue into a useless political circus. A pox upon them all.



True enough. And it's interesting that those who are most rabid in the politicizing usually end up on the negative end of history's judgement. Something to think about there for both sides, I'd suggest.

I agree with you 100%, on pretty much all your points. Ultimately, I think it boils down to whether you feel changing your own life to benefit others - and by others I mean people you don't know personally, the general others, the people of the world as a whole - is worth doing or not.

-Jake

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

Write that down and put it in a time capsule so when your grandchildren run out of fossil fuels, they know a small part of the reason why.

-Jake

I work for 'Mean Old Big Oil', and my stocks are diversified, my kids are going to have trust funds and maybe never have to work for a living. You guys are way too uptight. Relax a little, the world goes on. Have a cocktail and a smoke to calm your nerves.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

"The best way to bore an Internet troll to death is to ignore him (or her)."

From this point forward, consider yourself ignored.

.

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

"The best way to bore an Internet troll to death is to ignore him (or her)."

Consider yourself ignored.

.

I've been kicked off better boards than this one.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Well, this time you'll have to settle for being kicked off an inferior board.

.

 

[jamespowers]

If you all really are concerned about what one insignificant person can do and advocate for a cleaner environment and such then you really have to read Mark Jaccard's Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy. Cambridge University Press. The summary about covers it:

"More and more people believe we must quickly wean ourselves from fossil fuels - oil, natural gas and coal - to save the planet from environmental catastrophe, wars and economic collapse. Professor Jaccard argues that this view is misguided. We have the technological capability to use fossil fuels without emitting climate-threatening greenhouse gases or other pollutants. The transition from conventional oil and gas to their unconventional sources including coal for producing electricity, hydrogen and cleaner-burning fuels will decrease energy dependence on politically unstable regions. In addition, our vast fossil fuel resources will be the cheapest source of clean energy for the next century and perhaps longer, which is critical for the economic and social development of the world's poorer countries. By buying time for increasing energy efficiency, developing renewable energy technologies and making nuclear power more attractive, fossil fuels will play a key role in humanity's quest for a sustainable energy system.


• Explodes all the big myths about why we should stop using fossil fuels right now
• Provocative and challenging, it will spark widespread debate
• Accessibly written using clear diagrams and a minimum of jargon"

How is it that when this subject comes up we never hit the need for renewable, clean and virtually inexhausable nuclear power? France, no matter what I think of them, has been using nuclear power plants for over 25 years now and they produce 75% of their electricity with nuclear power. Now wouldn't that reduce our dependence on "foreign oil" and those nasty "multi national oil interests?"
How about making it easier to increase our refining capacity by letting oil refineries build new refineries without making them wait ten years wading through red tape and garbage that makes opening such a thing unprofitable? That would increase the gas supply, update our refineries with the newest technology (a new refinery hasn't been built in the US for 25 years--think that technology is old enough for you? ) and bring gas prices down due to an increase in supply.
Lastly, how about making all these stupid boutique gas formulations standardized coutry wide so that the supply could feed all states equally? If you have a high gas price it probably has something to do with the fact that your state has their own formula and the state next to you has one formula and so on and so on. Standardize it and free up the flow to all states. :eusa_doh:
I can think of 100 other ways to make energy more efficient and none of them involve changing your lifestyle and living in a cave. The technology is there. All we need to do is embrace it and standardize a few things across the country. Hydrogen Transfer Membrane Technologyis just one of many.
Personally I think Global warming is a farce and it goes in waves. From the 1920-1940s, they were worried about global warming, then from the 1950s-1970s we had them worry about global cooling. Now it is back to global warming again. I wish they would make up their mind. I suppose it doesn't help that their computer models are woefully inadequate and could not predict temperatures we are sure of just twenty years ago. If they can't predict the past then how are they a good measure of the future? :eusa_doh:

Regards to all,

J

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

Well, this time you'll have to settle for being kicked off an inferior board.

.

See, you didn't ignore me.

 

[JDCrockett]

And Another Thing!

Thank you James Powers, we should also ask how much of that $3.00 a gallon
goes to the government in taxes, talk about excess profits! I heard one statistic that stated the actual price of gas without the government's share
would be about $1.80.