Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 24KT on March 05, 2007, 02:34:41 PM
-
Ok, I finally saw "An Inconvenient Truth" (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/thumbup.gif) (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/thumbup.gif)
I strongly urge anyone who hasn't seen it yet to see it. It's fabulous and bang on!
-
Here's a small preview of what's to come from this thread.
Certain conservatives pretending that "Global Warming" is a liberal scam.
Certain people stating that Al Gore is nothing but a profiteer praying on the fears of people.
And of course the people with a brain taking issue with the "Global Warming is a liberal scam" point of view and Gore supporters defending Gore.
All in all it should be rather entertaining. ;D
-
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Gore, ...they really should see this documentary.
-
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Gore, ...they really should see this documentary.
I watched this film around a week ago now and quite enjoyed it. Gore is an excellent communicator and presents his views in a clear and concise manner, without weighing the viewer down with massive slabs of information. I did think he indulged in a little too much 'Al time', especially as we saw 80's Al and I-just-lost-to-Bush-Al, along with his reflections. Quite what this had to do with Global Warming I wasn't sure.
Was it Oscar material? Well, riding the coat-tails of Michael Moore esque success, I guess it was. Al is nowhere near as deceitful as Moore, however his movie does contain several exaggerations, and fails to deal sufficiently with the raging debate that is currently occurring on this very topic. To claim the contest is over regarding man-made climate change is a falsity in itself.
-
Perhaps a solution lies here:
If the majority of the worlds' scientists agree that big corps are causing it, then the big corps have to start building the sea walls around major cities.
-
Perhaps a solution lies here:
If the majority of the worlds' scientists agree that big corps are causing it, then the big corps have to start building the sea walls around major cities.
Except that 'majority rules' science has been proven to not necesarily be accurate. Will the scientists reimburse the companies if they are indeed incorrect?
-
Except that 'majority rules' science has been proven to not necesarily be accurate. Will the scientists reimburse the companies if they are indeed incorrect?
what do the scientists have to gain? do tell...
we know exactly what the big companies have to gain...
-
Bruce, it's like you intentionally choose the greediest, most corrupt motherfvckers on the planet, and you believe they have hearts of gold and could never tell a lie.
I love to argue, but lately, it sucks man. You don't use common sense.
-
Bruce, it's like you intentionally choose the greediest, most corrupt motherfvckers on the planet, and you believe they have hearts of gold and could never tell a lie.
I love to argue, but lately, it sucks man. You don't use common sense.
Living a dream world where no one lies except the bad guys and the liberals. ;D
-
Bruce, it's like you intentionally choose the greediest, most corrupt motherfvckers on the planet, and you believe they have hearts of gold and could never tell a lie.
I love to argue, but lately, it sucks man. You don't use common sense.
If that's the best argument you've got, then perhaps debating with me would 'suck' for you. Yes; I understand that point of view entirely.
On my latest inspection, you have bought into no less than 5 major conspiracy theories involving the United States. This, even after they have been run through some of the most rigorous and intense investigative and inquisitorial processes on the face of the planet. That you can accuse me of lacking 'common sense' would then, as you'd understand, bring me a considerate amount of levity.
-
Living a dream world where no one lies except the bad guys and the liberals. ;D
Tunnel vision is a beautiful thing. It allows you to completely ignore what you don't want to see.
-
Tunnel vision is a beautiful thing. It allows you to completely ignore what you don't want to see.
If only I could practice this feat on your e-stalk tendencies.
-
If only I could practice this feat on your e-stalk tendencies.
Hey Mr. Australia, you're stalking me. I haven't directed a post at your delusional ass in a couple of days can you say the same?
Nope, you can't.
STOP STALKING ME, MR. AUSTRALIA.
-
I haven't directed a post at your delusional ass in a couple of days can you
Erm, except for your post directed at me above.
-
I am reporting this stalking to the moderator.
Mr. Australia continually directs posts at me and I have only answered one in the past couple of days.
And I only answered it to get Mr. Australia to stop stalking me.
STOP STALKING ME MR. AUSTRALIA.
-
Mr. Australia continually directs posts at me and I have only answered one in the past couple of days.
Whoops, and the story changes, just like that. Actually, you weren't 'answering' me; you were chiming in to the cacophony of bile being orchestrated against me. I tell you what, I won't respond to your posts anymore if you don't mine, okay?
-
On my latest inspection, you have bought into no less than 5 major conspiracy theories involving the United States. This, even after they have been run through some of the most rigorous and intense investigative and inquisitorial processes on the face of the planet. That you can accuse me of lacking 'common sense' would then, as you'd understand, bring me a considerate amount of levity.
DO you believe the 9/11 commission did "some of the most rigorous and intense investigative and inquisitorial processes on the face of the planet"?
-
Ozmo,
Can you do something about MR. AUSTRALIA?
He's stalking me like a delusional Australian that secretly wishes to be an American.
I can't even tell him to stop stalking me without him going off on a diatribe.
Please stop MR. AUSTRALIA from stalking me.
-
DO you believe the 9/11 commission did "some of the most rigorous and intense investigative and inquisitorial processes on the face of the planet"?
Yes, I do.
-
Ozmo,
Can you do something about MR. AUSTRALIA?
He's stalking me like a delusional Australian that secretly wishes to be an American.
I can't even tell him to stop stalking me without him going off on a diatribe.
Please stop MR. AUSTRALIA from stalking me.
I know man.
At least he's real obvious.
That's what makes him annoying, he can dish it out but he can't take it. classic wuss. As soon as the other side side firing away he start whining, running, disengaging or throws out more ad-hom
Just remember his M.O.:
post some links and attack your character at any disagreement.
This guy is almost like Johnny. The difference is, johnny had a knack for making a good argument using logic.
-
I know man.
At least he's real obvious.
That's what makes him annoying, he can dish it out but he can't take it. classic wuss. As soon as the other side side firing away he start whining, running, disengaging or throws out more ad-hom
Just remember his M.O.:
post some links and attack your character at any disagreement.
This guy is almost like Johnny. The difference is, johnny had a knack for making a good argument using logic.
Uh huh, can you point out anything I've said that's inaccurate, as you're painting a picture of someone that often indulges in inaccuracies? Or are you simply upset I've shown you up more than once in reasoned debate?
-
I downloaded it on rapidshare and it was pretty good.
-
I watched this film around a week ago now and quite enjoyed it. Gore is an excellent communicator and presents his views in a clear and concise manner, without weighing the viewer down with massive slabs of information. I did think he indulged in a little too much 'Al time', especially as we saw 80's Al and I-just-lost-to-Bush-Al, along with his reflections. Quite what this had to do with Global Warming I wasn't sure.
Was it Oscar material? Well, riding the coat-tails of Michael Moore esque success, I guess it was. Al is nowhere near as deceitful as Moore, however his movie does contain several exaggerations, and fails to deal sufficiently with the raging debate that is currently occurring on this very topic. To claim the contest is over regarding man-made climate change is a falsity in itself.
Completely inaccurate statement.
Gore addresses it, ...and summarily dispatches it. It was done so quickly you might have missed it. We all know how you have a tendency to read selectively, ...why should you be any different when listening or watching? Gore was able to dismiss it so quickly because the 'evidence' was so flimsy to begin with.
-
I know man.
At least he's real obvious.
That's what makes him annoying, he can dish it out but he can't take it. classic wuss. As soon as the other side side firing away he start whining, running, disengaging or throws out more ad-hom
Just remember his M.O.:
post some links and attack your character at any disagreement.
This guy is almost like Johnny. The difference is, johnny had a knack for making a good argument using logic.
Thank you Ozmo. I was beginning to feel unsafe with being stalked.
You know I think I remember reading a study that said Australians that secretly wished they were Americans were more prone to stalking.
P.S. LOL ;D
-
Uh huh, can you point out anything I've said that's inaccurate,
See my above post
OR
Do a search on any one of your other posts. ;D
ps - Aren't you a little overdue for your stint in the cage... or have you forfitted the cage match with Debussey?
-
Completely inaccurate statement.
Gore addresses it, ...and summarily dispatches it. It was done so quickly you might have missed it. We all know how you have a tendency to read selectively, ...why should you be any different when listening or watching? Gore was able to dismiss it so quickly because the 'evidence' was so flimsy to begin with.
The evidence against Global Warming is 'flimsy', as you put it? Why then, do hundreds of climatologists contradict what you've just said? Interesting that you'd seek to dismiss debate on such an important topic.
-
ps - Aren't you a little overdue for your stint in the cage... or have you forfitted the cage match with Debussey?
Debussey has requested a postponment, which I've accepted. They'll be posted as soon as available.
In the mean time, would you like to challenge me on Global Warming in that very arena?
-
The evidence against Global Warming is 'flimsy', as you put it? Why then, do hundreds of climatologists contradict what you've just said? Interesting that you'd seek to dismiss debate on such an important topic.
Exxon has a large payroll.
-
Debussey has requested a postponment, which I've accepted. They'll be posted as soon as available.
In the mean time, would you like to challenge me on Global Warming in that very arena?
I thought I had already made it clear to you... you are not worth the time or effort.
-
Exxon has a large payroll.
Oh yes, ExxonMobil finances every climatologist worldwide that dares dissent from the Global Warming scare campaign. You, of course, are unable to use facts to show why they're wrong, but I guess it's far easier to simply pull the oil card.
And just so you're aware, the financial incentives for scare-mongers aren’t bad either. Just ask Al Gore.
-
I thought I had already made it clear to you... you are not worth the time or effort.
Your propensity to post frequently regarding my good self belies this statement.
-
Uh huh, can you point out anything I've said that's inaccurate, as you're painting a picture of someone that often indulges in inaccuracies? Or are you simply upset I've shown you up more than once in reasoned debate?
can you read past your stuck up nose BRUCE? lol
-
Tunnel vision is a beautiful thing. It allows you to completely ignore what you don't want to see.
Does BRUCE remind you of "Dean Prichard" from the movie Oldschool?
-
can you read past your stuck up nose BRUCE? lol
As easily as I can see through your childish attempts to 'debate', yes.
-
Yes, I do.
FOUR of the TEN 911 commissioners have said the investigation was very incomplete.
Are they wrong?
-
FOUR of the TEN 911 commissioners have said the investigation was very incomplete.
Are they wrong?
Rather than take your magnificently accurate and well-respected word for it, post a link and I'll address it.
-
240... you do realize what a time waster this guy is don't you?
Why spend your time debating a troll, ...when you could be making money instead?
-
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Gore, ...they really should see this documentary.
I'd rather jump off of a 6 story building head first and land on a 20p rusty nail with my eye than to give lying hipocrite a penny of my money............I'd rather run him over with my 14MPG SUV while eating a 2lb piece of filet mignon and having a Polar Bear as a hood orniment while putting the peddle to the medal with my kangaroo covered boots, I'd rather.........well, you get the idea >:(!!
-
240... you do realize what a time waster this guy is don't you?
Why spend your time debating a troll, ...when you could be making money instead?
no kidding...
-
I wouldn't post a link to anything Bruce every asked... He never does it... He is right, and you are wrong... don't you all understand this?
-
I like the movie! Did everyone giving this movie a bad rap see it???? I doubt it...
-
I watched it and was bored to death
shouldn't this be in the entertainment board?
-
I watched it and was bored to death
shouldn't this be in the entertainment board?
Well if it was boring, then it's not 'entertainment' is it?
:D
-
I watched it and was bored to death
shouldn't this be in the entertainment board?
No, The message/intent is a political issue... if the subject crosses over it's game for both. Documentaries aren't usually made for entertainment purposes anyway. Global warming is an important political issue and any debate or work delving into the debate is ok for this forum. Say you have a movie like the Robin William's Man of the Year and you want to debate the issues from the movie, what real world political issues were tackled in the movie, what political points then there is no reason you can't post that here, but on the same hand, if one wants to chat up the entertainment angle in Entertainment, then why not? But talking about the political angle in the entertainment forum is probably not best and vise versa, talking up the entertainment angle in political is probably not the best. Yea a post might pop up in either place but no biggie there, but if the whole thread is dedicated to the entertainment angle, it doesn't belong in political and I will move it as I have done with threads that don't belong here. I have no problem moving threads that don't belong and every intention of keeping this forum focused on political issues.
-
Well if it was boring, then it's not 'entertainment' is it?
:D
It's a documentary. Not an entertainment work.
-
It's a documentary. Not an entertainment work.
It was a joke Berserker... :P
-
Here's another example Bigger B...
Here's a thread on Rage against the Machine in Entertainment right where it should be.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=132704.0
Now if I started a thread on the political relevance of one of their songs or several of their songs or band activism, I could easily post it in political. I wouldn't expect people to start talking about what great musicians they are, but there's all the room in the world to bring up the political points the group makes with their songs and/or activism...
But to be sure, I do not want politically unrelated materials posted in political. I will move them and if pointed out I will move ones I missed. It will degrade the forum having non-political issues in political and I don't want that.
-
It was a joke Berserker... :P
Sorry, I get caught up in defending various attacks on the board, things tend to fly over my head sometimes ;D
-
Sorry, I get caught up in defending various attacks on the board, things tend to fly over my head sometimes ;D
Tis cool... no harm, no foul.
-
I wouldn't post a link to anything Bruce every asked... He never does it... He is right, and you are wrong... don't you all understand this?
Er, no. You see, I post evidence in every thread I start and the appropriate links. If there's anything at all incorrect or inaccurate, tell me what. Otherwise, try not to take this angle of whining about how I never admit I'm wrong. Show me I am, if I'm such a fool, it shouldn't be a problem.
Is there any one point I've made you can disprove? Just one?
-
Er, no. You see, I post evidence in every thread I start and the appropriate links. If there's anything at all incorrect or inaccurate, tell me what. Otherwise, try not to take this angle of whining about how I never admit I'm wrong. Show me I am, if I'm such a fool, it shouldn't be a problem.
Is there any one point I've made you can disprove? Just one?
For the record... This will be the last time I respond to you on these forums... due to your inherent attitude.
I and others have disproven you... but you choose to ignore them when they are presented... but you of course will respond that we have "not", so it becomes a moot point then, doesn't it?
-
it was just a movie guys
the only reason you suggest it has a political agenda is because it was 'hosted/narrated' by a half assed hippy with a suit
-
it was just a movie guys
the only reason you suggest it has a political agenda is because it was 'hosted/narrated' by a half assed hippy with a suit
Does it not try to make a case for the global warming model and encorage activism from the viewers? Why yes, yes it does... Is Global warming a political issue? That is an issue two sides are engouraging the governemnt to side one way or the other on? Why yes, yes it is... Half assed hippy this or that... the case is made made by the fact that it IS a Political Issue :) The activism is there, the polticians responding are there, the pudants taking up the issue are there. What more would you want to make the case it's a valid political issue ???
-
Global warming is not a political issue...its a moral issue
-
Global warming is not a political issue...its a moral issue
Everyday politicians make laws regarding our "morals".
-
when global warming is the main argument for a party leader to challenge for power then it will be a political issue
that wont happen for 10 years or so
-
when global warming is the main argument for a party leader to challenge for power then it will be a political issue
that wont happen for 10 years or so
If we weren't in the middle of a crappy war right now, it might be enough.
-
well in that case they'd need to make up something wouldn't they ;)
-
well in that case they'd need to make up something wouldn't they ;)
Almost as bad as making up lies about plutonium and WMDs huh?
;)
-
well played my friend
well played
-
Global warming is not a political issue...its a moral issue
LOLOLOLOL... OK... I really don't want to fight you on this, we just got on good terms, so I'll try to keep it cool... I would note that I could say the same thing about abortion or doctor assisted suicide. they are moral issues. Does the morality arguments of an issue invalidate them as political issues? clearly not. It doesn't stop guys like Rush and other political talking heads from taking up these issues on a regular basis. If the issue has two sides trying to convince the government to act one way verses another, it is a political issue. That makes abortion a political issue, it makes medical Marijuana a political issue and it makes global warming a political issue for the same reason. For it not to be a political issue you will have to make the case of why we shouldn't argue over the direction two sides are trying to sway the government to go on the issue and that would be an argument that says we shouldn't argue over the direction of our government and arguing over the direction of our government is what political debate is all about :)
-
LOLOLOLOL... OK...
youre comparing global warming to an abortion?
global warming is speculation my man
-
youre comparing global warming to an abortion?
global warming is speculation my man
I could say WMDs were speculation...
But I won't... I'll try for something else...
How about, the economic future of the country... That's total speculation and is not at all something the government can directly control, however people win and lose elections and debate over the economy all of the time.
-
youre comparing global warming to an abortion?
global warming is speculation my man
Is there or is there not two opposing sides trying to effect government policy in regards to global warming? Yes or no?
-
BB, how many fosters have you had tonight ;D
-
I could say WMDs were speculation...
But I won't... I'll try for something else...
How about, the economic future of the country... That's total speculation and is not at all something the government can directly control, however people win and lose elections and debate over the economy all of the time.
there were no wmd's we knew that b4 they went in to Iraq...(You honestly think they would have attacked a country that has nuclear weapons?)
Sensationalism is a powerful tool...just like politicians need funding to run for power, scientists need funding to continue research. Ironic how politicians that fund the scientific researches are backed by industrial companies.
jobs are greater than the environment...if gwb promises 30 new car plants with thousands of jobs you think the voters will give a damn about some trees?
people that want jobs vote...not hippies
-
Is there or is there not two opposing sides trying to effect government policy in regards to global warming? Yes or no?
neither party know if they are right...so how can it matter?
have they issued policy either way?
have they issued policy if they're wrong?
-
there were no wmd's we knew that b4 they went in to Iraq...(You honestly think they would have attacked a country that has nuclear weapons?)
Sensationalism is a powerful tool...just like politicians need funding to run for power, scientists need funding to continue research. Ironic how politicians that fund the scientific researches are backed by industrial companies.
jobs are greater than the environment...if gwb promises 30 new car plants with thousands of jobs you think the voters will give a damn about some trees?
people that want jobs vote...not hippies
That may be true, but I was talking about how both are speculation... nothing more.
Oh, and while that may be true about people wanting jobs over trees... I don't see a lot of those being produced either.. ESPECIALLY in the auto industry (since you brought it up).
Don't count the trees out... people who want jobs don't really jump out and vote these days either it seems.
-
That may be true, but I was talking about how both are speculation... nothing more.
Oh, and while that may be true about people wanting jobs over trees... I don't see a lot of those being produced either.. ESP.ECIALLY in the auto industry (since you brought it up).
Don't count the trees out... people who want jobs don't really jump out and vote these days either it seems.
the auto industry was a bad example...i like the phrase 'car plant'
all im saying is when there is policy based purely on the alleged global warming phenomenon then it will be a political mantle
-
neither party know if they are right...so how can it matter?
have they issued policy either way?
have they issued policy if they're wrong?
You didn't answer the question so I will. The answer is yes, there are two sides trying to affect policy. And yes, decisions are made by government that make up a direction all the time, such as pulling out of the Kyoto treaty. That is a government decision that affected the direction and was favorable to one side of the issue. I know you're just fucking with me on this and yes, I feel like a complete ass arguing the obvious while you crack another fosters and laugh at me :D
-
the auto industry was a bad example...i like the phrase 'car plant'
all im saying is when there is policy based purely on the alleged global warming phenomenon then it will be a political mantle
Well, I will agree that when global warming is our only problem... we've got it made, however, I don't think it will be that way... there will always be many issues and we will have to solve them at the same time.
Personally, while i do like having a job, i don't want to fuck up the planet for it either.
-
Bezerker
youre compulsion to assume im drinking is laughable.
i repeat: all im saying is when there is policy based purely on the alleged global warming phenomenon then it will be a political mantle
until then its a 'catch phrase not unlike the word 'terror'
-
Bezerker
youre compulsion to assume im drinking is laughable.
i repeat: all im saying is when there is policy based purely on the alleged global warming phenomenon then it will be a political mantle
until then its a 'catch phrase not unlike the word 'terror'
Hey wait... but didn't Bush win his last election because he was the one who would "crack down on terror"?
Maybe it is a complete Mantle now... You've given me renewed hope.
-
the auto industry was a bad example...i like the phrase 'car plant'
all im saying is when there is policy based purely on the alleged global warming phenomenon then it will be a political mantle
Here you go, a policy that involves the global warming argument. http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/
You just nullified your argument. Not only that, laws are passed on the city, state and federal level all the time taking the global warming model into consideration both for and against. Bush giving the energy companies a free ticket after he got in office, it's policy... How bush approches treaties like kyoto, it's policy. ;)
-
Bezerker
youre compulsion to assume im drinking is laughable.
i repeat: all im saying is when there is policy based purely on the alleged global warming phenomenon then it will be a political mantle
until then its a 'catch phrase not unlike the word 'terror'
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be a dick, I honestly thought you were fucking with me, you mean you're serious :o
-
Hey wait... but didn't Bush win his last election because he was the one who would "crack down on terror"?
Maybe it is a complete Mantle now... You've given me renewed hope.
maybe so...i still don't exactly know what 'terror' is
do you see the term 'global warming' having the same reception as 'terror' at the polls though?
-
Bezerker
youre compulsion to assume im drinking is laughable.
i repeat: all im saying is when there is policy based purely on the alleged global warming phenomenon then it will be a political mantle
until then its a 'catch phrase not unlike the word 'terror'
Gee, I guess you better tell Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck and about 30 other political commentators that they've completely screwed the pooch, global warming isn't an issue for them to be talking about? Your argument is that it shouldn't be open for political debate until there's established laws effected by the issue. Well there are government decisions affected by the issues all the time such as with Kyoto. But none the less, if your argument is that it shouldn't be debated until one side or the other on an issue gets their way with government, well that's kind of dumb... You have two sides to an issue trying to effect the direction of government and you think it's a no go for debate until it's to late ::)
-
We're not at war with Iran, by your logic BB, we shouldn't be talking about it in political. :-\ The military buildup in China had no policy change by our administration, by your logic, we shouldn't be talking about it. 240 want's there to be an new investigation on 9/11, but there is no policy on that happening so by your logic, it's not an issue for poltical. There is no flat tax, but there is an active argument for and against trying to affect the direction of government, but by your logic, we shouldn't argue a flat tax in political... Forgive me, but you're way off base.
-
this thread was about a one-sided sensationalized movie that happened to be supported by a dude that went for presidency
'global warming' is a name for an unproven environmental phenomenon...not a political standpoint
issues that are currently being addressed should have been looked at 20+ years ago
by the way as I type it is the hottest march day in history here in Perth (43 celcius/109 fahrenheit)
-
So your case is that it's more entertainment than a valid political argument? Big money being spent by two sides to offect government on an issue and it's more entertainment... Well, I say that's not so. This issue is being fought out almost daily ON THE POLITICAL SCENE in AMERICAN and GLOBALLY... It's a political issue, end of story. The subject has been brought up by at least a dozen members here. They're not all mistaken. :)
-
'global warming' is a nothing word
its a catch phrase
there is no argument to address 'global warming'
there are potential symptoms, that, like i said have been issues for decades
its just more crap thats forced down out throats to make us turn on the television and remove our minds from people being killed in Iraq
thats all
-
'global warming' is a nothing word
its a catch phrase
there is no argument to address 'global warming'
there are potential symptoms, that, like i said have been issues for decades
its just more crap thats forced down out throats to make us turn on the television and remove our minds from people being killed in Iraq
thats all
You already lost your point when I linked to the .gov site covering POLICY on the issue ;)
-
i didn't see an unveiling of a 'global warming policy' anywhere
keep digging scrappy do
-
Oh and by the way, Politics makes use of catch phrases allllllllllllllll the time. Climate Change is the rightwing anti to Global Warming. Pro-choice, pro-life, surrender monkeys, cut and run... It's all part of the political game, so it comes right back to the fact two fuggin groups are trying to affect policy and there is an active public debate on it... YES ON ALL ACCOUNT, LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT :)
-
i didn't see an unveiling of a 'global warming policy' anywhere
keep digging scrappy do
that's because you're sitting here in this debate with your hands over your ears going, "lalallalalalalalalla, I can't hear you.... lallalalalallalalalla"
-
you going to show me this global warming policy or what?
i know theres nothing out there B...and by the way, it was JUST a movie
-
that's because you're sitting here in this debate with your hands over your ears going, "lalallalalalalalalla, I can't hear you.... lallalalalallalalalla"
environmental policies are nothing new mate.
-
Here you go scrappy :D If this isn't enough polilitical activity and affected policy!!!!!!! You clearly have a different agenda with your argument here.
politics of global warming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
energy Portal
The politics of global warming looks at the current political issues relating to global warming, as well as the historical rise of global warming as a political issue.
Note: although this may include some discussion of the science involved, the details of the scientific issues are to be found elsewhere (see eg global warming). The primary focus is the political aspect of the mitigation of global warming.
Contents [hide]
1 political sphere
1.1 United States: Federal government
1.2 United States: State and local governments
1.2.1 RGGI
1.3 Other governments
2 Positions of the Energy Industries
3 Environmental groups
4 Academia
5 Media
6 Timeline
7 References
8 External links
8.1 Environmental groups
8.2 Business
[edit] political sphere
UNFCCC
European Union's European Climate Change Programme
Developing countries
31st G8 summit
[edit] United States: Federal government
The United States, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol — though their one-time representative, Condoleezza Rice, remarked that the Protocol was "unacceptable" at the time it was presented to her. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue [2]. The US government continues to stress the alleged uncertainty of global warming, despite the increasing scientific consensus, and maintains the need for further research before any action is justified.
In October of 2003, the Pentagon published a report titled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. The authors conclude by stating that "this report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor. [3]
In October 2003 and again in June 2005, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed a vote in the US Senate.[4].
In January 2007, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would form a United States Congress subcommittee to examine global warming. [1] The US government announced that it was withdrawing funding from the lobby groups it had been supporting that aimed to disount the evidence for global warming.[citation needed]
Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I'm hot to get something done. It's hard not to conclude that the politics of global warming has changed and a new consensus for action is emerging and it is a bipartisan consensus." [5]
See also Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate.
[edit] United States: State and local governments
However, 195 US cities representing more than 50 million Americans - have committed to reducing carbon emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. In 2005, California (the world's sixth largest economy) committed to reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Measures to meet these targets include tighter automotive emissions standards, and requirements for renewable energy as a proportion of electricity production. The Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that by 2020, drivers would save $26 billion per year if California’s automotive standards were implemented nationally.[6]
On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both political parties agreed to terms in the California Global Warming Solutions Act. When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. [7] The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."
On September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.[8]
[edit] RGGI
Seven Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will apply pressure on the federal government to support Kyoto Protocol.
Participating states[9]:
Beginning in 2009, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants will be capped by state:
Connecticut: 10.7 million tons
Delaware: 7.56 million tons
Maine: 5.95 million tons
New Hampshire: 8.6 million tons
New Jersey: 22.9 million tons
New York: 64.3 million tons
Vermont: 1.2 million tons
Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia, Eastern Canadian Provinces.
[edit] Other governments
Australia's current position is that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, in particular because of concerns over a loss of competitiveness with the US, which rejects the treaty [10]. The Australian TV series 4 Corners screened a program titled Greenhouse Mafia which described how some business lobby groups have influenced the Australian government to prevent Australia from reducing greenhouse gas emissions [2]. Industries that have been able to successfully lobby Australian governments to not reduce emissions include coal, oil, cement, aluminium, mining and electricity industries [3]. Leaked minutes from a meeting between leaders of energy intensive industries and the Australian government describe how both groups are worried that mandatory renewable energy targets were working too well and were "market skewed" towards wind power [4]. Despite expectations, the Federal government failed to increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets (MRET Scheme) to more than 2%. [11] Various Australian Labor Party state governments have announced that they will introduce an MRET Scheme of their own [12][13]. On 3 February 2007, the Australian government announced that it will not be pursuing mitigation of global warming, and instead will be adopting a policy of adaptation [5].
Russia signed the Kyoto Protocol in November 2004, after a deal with the European Union over WTO membership. Russia's ratification completed the requirements of the treaty to come into force, based on nations totaling 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions.
The UK government-commissioned Stern Review into the economic effects of climate change was published in October 2006. Tony Blair's assessment was that it showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous". He added, "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto — we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further [than Kyoto]."[6]
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto Protocol a "socialist scheme".[7]
[edit] Positions of the Energy Industries
One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 2005, it opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming. In recent years, other companies have increasingly come to accept the existence and consequences of global warming; for example, the Chairman of BP, John Browne, declared a need for action in 2002. Lord Oxburgh, non-executive chairman of Shell, said in a speech at the 2005 Hay-on-Wye Festival: "We have 45 years, and if we start now, not in 10 or 15 years' time, we have a chance of hitting those targets. But we've got to start now. We have no time to lose."[14]
In January, 2007, Exxon appeared to begin distancing itself from lobby groups that deny the threat of global warming, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute MSNBC Reuters.
One sector of the energy industry that has no problem with the greenhouse gas arguments is the nuclear industry. Margret Thatcher was one of the first major political figures to suggest that the nuclear power was a "green" solution. This was largely regarded with derision at the time but it is the ultimate goal of Tony Blair's solution to tomorrow's energy needs and probably explains his enthusiasm for CO2 emission controls.
Indeed as many countries move towards legally binding engagements to Kyoto targets, including fines for failing to achieve them, many governments may find this a convenient excuse for otherwise unpopular expansions of their nuclear programs.
This would be an ironic outcome for many who see highlighting the possible dangers of global warming as protecting the environment.
As pointed out on Counter Punch [15] the nuclear power industry is not slow to present itself as the "green" solution :
only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the next ten years is to bring on-line at least an additional 50 reactors. "Nuclear energy has been the largest single contributor to reduced air pollution in the world over the past 20 years," the NEI's Kyoto global warming book boasts.
Although Greenpeace point out that nuclear power is still responsible for about one third of the CO2 emissions as equivalent fossil fuels energy over the lifetime of an installation. [16]
[edit] Environmental groups
Thousands of protesters marched on the international day of action on 3 December 2005, which coincided with the first meeting of the Parties in Montreal. [17] The planned demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the World Social Forum.[18]
Christian environmental groups are also increasingly active on climate change, for example What Would Jesus Drive? and The Evangelical Climate Initiative.
US Catholic Bishops also have recognized the urgency of addressing global warming in a 2001 statement from the US Congress of Catholic Bishops Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good
[edit] Academia
G8 science academies' statements [19]
[edit] Media
An Inconvenient Truth
Hell and High Water
Michael Crichton
The Day After Tomorrow
Are We Changing Planet Earth?
David Warren wrote in the Ottawa Citizen:
"Note that the IPCC report's conclusions were issued first, and the supporting research is now promised for several months from now. What does that tell you?" [20]
Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe:
"Global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers."
"American politics has remained polarized. ... Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it." [21]
[edit] Timeline
1979: First World Climate Conference [22]
1987: Montreal Protocol on restricting ozone layer-damaging CFCs demonstrates the possibility of coordinated international action on global environmental issues
1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up to coordinate scientific research, by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change".
1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, entering into force 21 March 1994
1996: European Union adopts target of a maximum 2°C rise in average global temperature
25 June 1997: U.S. Senate passes Byrd-Hagel Resolution rejecting Kyoto without more commitments from developing countries [23]
1997: Kyoto Protocol agreed
2001: George W. Bush withdraws from the Kyoto negotiations
16 February 2005: Kyoto Protocol comes into force (not including the US or Australia)
2005: first carbon emissions trading scheme (EU) and carbon tax (New Zealand) implemented
July 2005: 31st G8 summit has climate change on the agenda, but makes relatively little concrete progress
November/December 2005: United Nations Climate Change Conference; the first meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, alongside the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11), to plan further measures for 2008-2012 and beyond.
July 19, 2006: In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed forming the Climate Action Board, a new, centralized authority under his direct control that would be responsible for implementing one of the nation's most far-reaching initiatives to curb global warming. California ranks 12th in the world in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, however its regulatory actions tend to have far-reaching effects throughout the U.S. [8]
30 October 2006: The Stern Review is published. It is the first comprehensive contribution to the global warming debate by an economist and its conclusions lead to the promise of urgent action by the UK government to further curb Europe's CO2 emissions and engage other countries to do so. It discusses the consequences of climate change, mitigation measures to prevent it, possible adaptation measures to deal with its consequences, and prospects for international cooperation.
[edit] References
^ Pelosi creates global warming committee, Associated Press, 1/18/07.
^ Transcript of Janine Cohen's report "The Greenhouse Mafia". 4 Corners (2006-02-13). Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
^ The Dirty politics of Climate Change. Australia Institute (2006-02-20). Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
^ Minutes of a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group (LETAG) with the Australian Government (2006-05-06). Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
^ Australia 'must adapt' to global warming (ABC news article) (2007-02-03). Retrieved on 2007-02-03.
^ BBC News: Climate change fight 'can't wait'
^ Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals. The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party. Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme' (accessdate=2007-01-30).
^ [1]
Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap (2003), "Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy", Social Problems 50(3)
New York Times, 10 March 2005, "Evangelicals Put Climate Change High on Their Agenda: Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming"
[edit] External links
U. Colorado : politics and Science [24]
UNFCCC
History of global warming
Global warming and media
Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming
George Monbiot, The Guardian, July 12, 2005, "Faced with this crisis: Instead of denying climate change is happening, the US now denies that we need proper regulation to stop it"
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 20 September 2005, "It would seem that I was wrong about big business: Corporations are ready to act on global warming but are thwarted by ministers who resist regulation in the name of the market"
John D. Sterman and Linda Booth Sweeney (undated) "Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter"
OpenDemocracy.net the politics of climate change
Amanda Griscom Little, Grist Magazine, July 20, 2005, "The Revolution Will Be Localized"
Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich, Free Market Foundation, April 4, 2006, Weatherproofing African economies against climate change
the IwantCleanAir site California Global Warming Solutions Act Will Be Law
Senators sound alarm on climate - Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times - January 31, 2007
[edit] Environmental groups
http://www.panda.org/climate/ — the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
http://www.worldwatch.org/topics/energy/climate/ — Worldwatch Institute
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change — Greenpeace
Stop Climate Chaos - Coalition of UK charities
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com — Environmental Defense
CutCO2.org - Independent information source
[edit] Business
Carbon Disclosure Project [25], supported by over 150 institutional investors, aims for transparency on companies' greenhouse gas emissions
-
What always gourds my hide on "Global Warming" is that there are still many uncertainties to it's cause. The majority of scientists will say that CO2 emmissions "contribute" to the warming trend, but DO NOT completely say that it IS THE CAUSE. Not to mention that most of this is directed to the US because we are as a country the cause 25% of the Earth's CO2 emmissions. What about the other 75%? Shouldn't Gore and CO. be overseas in the former USSR, and other countries who use "less technology" to make power and fuel? What about the deforestation of South America, which most scientists also believe, depleting the balance of CO2 and oxygen exchange? What of the more recent underwater volcanic activity, which has a more direct effect on melting ice, then just the higher air temperature?
The last Ice Age was the result, according to the same scientists, to a rapid rise in temperature in a 50 year period. All this WITHOUT industrial CO2.
Like Beserker states, it is a POLITCAL ISSUE. And like all politics it involves larger amounts of money for the side that can convince the public it has the inside track on the warming trend.
On a side note: How in the hell is CA going to slow down it's emmissions, when the DMV can't even help people in line? Lol, have you seen how many hoopties in CA there are running around? How many do you think have passed an emmissions test? I laugh at this because I lived there and knew MANY people that had cars that were not only a hazzard to drive, much less REGISTERED to the CA DMV!
-
I'd rather jump off of a 6 story building head first and land on a 20p rusty nail with my eye than to give lying hipocrite a penny of my money............I'd rather run him over with my 14MPG SUV while eating a 2lb piece of filet mignon and having a Polar Bear as a hood orniment while putting the peddle to the medal with my kangaroo covered boots, I'd rather.........well, you get the idea >:(!!
Have you ever thought about anger management counseling? And just what are you so livid for, did Gore sleep with your girlfriend?
By the way, your above post meets the requirements for a meltdown. ;D
-
For the record... This will be the last time I respond to you on these forums... due to your inherent attitude.
I and others have disproven you... but you choose to ignore them when they are presented... but you of course will respond that we have "not", so it becomes a moot point then, doesn't it?
Ah, I see. You don't have one you can disprove, so now you're ignoring me, thanks.
-
Global warming is not a political issue...its a moral issue
Global Warming is a scientific fact... a reality for our generation... and those to come.
The imperative to do something is a moral issue.
The will to do something is a political issue. and as Mr Gore said "Political will is a renewable resource"
Let us summarize shall we:
The majority of Democrats want to take action against global warming
The majority of Republicans do not
Therefore, ...we can safely conclude:
Democrats = moral
Republicans = not moral.
Class dismissed. ;D
-
Global Warming is a scientific fact... a reality for our generation... and those to come.
Are you deliberately seeking idiotic things to say, you know, to make the rest of us chuckle?
-
Are you deliberately seeking idiotic things to say, you know, to make the rest of us chuckle?
well, that part of her statement isn't out of line with what Arnold said so I don't see how it's that laughable :-\
On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both political
parties agreed to terms in the California Global Warming Solutions Act.
When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. [7] The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."
-
What always gourds my hide on "Global Warming" is that there are still many uncertainties to it's cause. The majority of scientists will say that CO2 emmissions "contribute" to the warming trend, but DO NOT completely say that it IS THE CAUSE. Not to mention that most of this is directed to the US because we are as a country the cause 25% of the Earth's CO2 emmissions. What about the other 75%? Shouldn't Gore and CO. be overseas in the former USSR, and other countries who use "less technology" to make power and fuel? What about the deforestation of South America, which most scientists also believe, depleting the balance of CO2 and oxygen exchange? What of the more recent underwater volcanic activity, which has a more direct effect on melting ice, then just the higher air temperature?
The last Ice Age was the result, according to the same scientists, to a rapid rise in temperature in a 50 year period. All this WITHOUT industrial CO2.
Like Beserker states, it is a POLITCAL ISSUE. And like all politics it involves larger amounts of money for the side that can convince the public it has the inside track on the warming trend.
On a side note: How in the hell is CA going to slow down it's emmissions, when the DMV can't even help people in line? Lol, have you seen how many hoopties in CA there are running around? How many do you think have passed an emmissions test? I laugh at this because I lived there and knew MANY people that had cars that were not only a hazzard to drive, much less REGISTERED to the CA DMV!
Oldschool, Gore isn't just in the US. He is crisscrossing the globe speaking to anyone who will listen.
I strongly urge you to see the documentary. It is very clearly laid out. Trust me. You want to see this.
-
well, that part of her statement isn't out of line with what Arnold said so I don't see how it's that laughable :-\
On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both political
parties agreed to terms in the California Global Warming Solutions Act.
When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. [7] The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."
Anyone who uses science is a liberal.
If you are with the scientists, you're with the terrorists.
-
While global warming is an issue, pollution seems to be part it.
Can we all agree pollution is a problem?
Or are there neo-con idiots out there who will follow their party line and disagree with that too?
-
well, that part of her statement isn't out of line with what Arnold said so I don't see how it's that laughable :-\
On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both political
parties agreed to terms in the California Global Warming Solutions Act.
When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. [7] The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."
As individuals, our biggest single contribution to the global warming problem is our cars. Unfortunately, we are stuck with them. No one is telling us to stop driving tomorrow, that's impractical, ...but we can do something about reducing our contribution to global warming, by reducing the emissions that come out of our tailpipes.
To that end, there is a company, called FFI, that is barely 16 months old, providing the technology to help each one of us do just that, by reducing the emissions that come out of our tailpipes by 75% or more.
The good news is that not only will we reduce 75% or more of the pollution we're putting into the atmosphere,
...we will also consume less fuel in the process, and get better mileage from the fuel we do consume.
This has a significant positive impact on our wallets.
We also:
- consume less gas, travelling further on the same tank of gas,
- save money
- breathe cleaner air
For those who are entrepreneurial in nature, ...they can even make money as well. This is the model we as a planet should be following... rewarding people for doing the right thing... the responsible thing, rather than what we've seen previously where rewards come from exploiting resources and ultimately destroying ourselves in the process. We are in the age of consequences, ...and we can no longer afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We need to do our part to mitigate the problem, ...and we should be rewarded for doing so.
Already this product is sweeping around the globe and is being used by hundreds of thousands of consumers in over 180 countries. Sales of this product have already reached well over $100 million dollars, and there is no end in sight.
(http://platinum.funpic.org/images/wbr-heading-2.gif)
The World Business Review is "Your television source for factual information about the latest topics, trends and solutions to industry problems." The long awaited WBR television show featuring Fuel Freedom International will air this March 13, 2007, on Bravo and on March 14, 2007, on CNBC.
(http://platinum.funpic.org/images/wbr-people-350.gif)
This FFi show for World Business Review is a phenomenal documentary that profiles FFi. To create it, Randy Ray, Co-Founder and Co-Owner of FFi, and Jerry Lang, a world renowned combustion and refining expert, were interviewed by Norman Schwarzkopf, an American hero, best known for his serving as General, Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, and Commander of Operations of Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Also in the studio were Wendy Lewis, Co-Founder and Co-Owner of FFi, and Debbie Kurley, Director of FFi Operations. All are pictured above.
World Business Review is an American television news magazine. The weekly series is among the longest running utilizing this format, and originally was hosted by Casper Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense and Chairman of Forbes Magazine. It was then hosted for six years by Alexander Haig, and is now hosted by Norman Schwarzkopf. The show is directed by Emmy Award winning Alan Levy.
WBR discusses business and technology, presenting short segments about specific companies and their products, with supporting material from field reports and industry experts. It provides education about the latest topics, trends and issues in a variety of industries. Therefore, this business educational series is used by a number of major colleges and universities as a course supplement.
WBR is independently produced by Multi-Media Productions USA, Inc., and is distributed worldwide on CNBC and Bravo, as paid programming. WBR airs internationally in Canada and on Asia Television and can be accessed 24/7 via wbrtv.com. WBR can also be seen on United Airlines In-Flight Programming.
To view more info on FFi online please visit here (http://jme.mpgfreedom.com/intro.aspx?cid=50962) and after the intro, go through the various steps 1, 2, and 3
For hear more information about FFi, consider listening to our LIVE conference call taking place TONIGHT
(Tuesday) at 6:30pm Pacific, 8:30 Central, or 9:30pm Eastern. Dial: (641) 297-7556 enter pin code 125056#
You can call in and simply be a fly on the wall so to speak. No participation necessary other than to listen. :)
ps - In order to ensure you get a line into the conference call, ...you might want to dial in 3 minutes early.
pps - If you missed the LIVE conference call, you can have a listen to our last truckers conference call (http://jme.myffi.biz/call/truckers_call_27_07.mp3)
-
couldn't you have just made an advertisement banner? ;D
-
couldn't you have just made an advertisement banner? ;D
I'll get right on that. :D
-
well, that part of her statement isn't out of line with what Arnold said so I don't see how it's that laughable :-\
On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both political
parties agreed to terms in the California Global Warming Solutions Act.
When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. [7] The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."
Good quote - Arnie is dead wrong if he thinks the debate is over - it's far from it. That being said, Arnold is the oracle, more so than Al Gore will ever be.
-
couldn't you have just made an advertisement banner? ;D
ditto...
-
Can we all agree pollution is a problem?
Heavy vog today. I can barely see the mountains. :'(
-
Heavy vog today. I can barely see the mountains. :'(
Here's the deal:
I can't eat striped bass more than 1 a week because of mercury content.
Certain plants won't grow here because of pollution
There's almost always haze in the bay area. only a few times a year we have clear visibility
-
Here's the deal:
I can't eat striped bass more than 1 a week because of mercury content.
Certain plants won't grow here because of pollution
There's almost always haze in the bay area. only a few times a year we have clear visibility
Don't worry, ...with current trends, pretty soon the only thing visible in what used to be your area will be water. :'(
-
Here's the deal:
I can't eat striped bass more than 1 a week because of mercury content.
Certain plants won't grow here because of pollution
There's almost always haze in the bay area. only a few times a year we have clear visibility
One of the reasons I will never leave this rock. Vog is the exception here (unless you live on the Kona side of the Big Island). The air is pretty clean and you cannot see it (always a good thing). We never have "smog alerts" either.
Seems like L.A. has polluted the entire state of California.
-
One of the reasons I will never leave this rock. Vog is the exception here (unless you live on the Kona side of the Big Island). The air is pretty clean and you cannot see it (always a good thing). We never have "smog alerts" either.
Seems like L.A. has polluted the entire state of California.
You will when sea level rises. If you think the floating bodies of Katrina was horrific,
...wait til you see lower Manhatten, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Florida, Hawaii, ...or what'll be left of them. :'(
-
You will when sea level rises. If you think the floating bodies of Katrina was horrific,
...wait til you see lower Manhatten, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Florida, Hawaii, ...or what'll be left of them. :'(
There isn't a port anywhere in the World that has reported rising sea-levels. Why is this?
-
There isn't a port anywhere in the World that has reported rising sea-levels. Why is this?
Because you are living in BIZARRO world, ...not on planet earth. ::)
-
Because you are living in BIZARRO world, ...not on planet earth. ::)
Remember... if you don't agree with Bruce... well, you're just WRONG! ::)
-
Oh, okay, I state a fact and this is the response I get. Thanks for the confirmation of your inadequacies on this topic.
-
Inconvenient truth is a great documentary.. Watch it, please.
-
Inconvenient truth is a great documentary.. Watch it, please.
inconvenient truth was the catalyst that began my skepticism about global warming being real
save your 2 bux rental...just watch some melodramatical prime time 'current affairs' show and you'll hear the same crap
-
Oldschool, Gore isn't just in the US. He is crisscrossing the globe speaking to anyone who will listen.
I strongly urge you to see the documentary. It is very clearly laid out. Trust me. You want to see this.
Speaking is one thing, Jag, but action is another. Clearly other poorer countries who rely on a cheap way to make power, won't have the funds to change over to more "less emmissions" equipment and machinery.
All they want to do is survive. Especially the ones in the colder climates. Heat is the only way and if you don't have and "energy efficient" ELECTRICAL heater.....lol.......the n I guess burning wood and gas are the next best bets.
I've read many articles on the warming trend and the endless predictions of how the Earth's temp will be blah, blah in 2000 whatever, but throw in a couple of volcanic eruptions and those charts will change dramatically.
We're due for another "ice age" and before every one, there is a big warm up. Just to piss PETA off, I'll buy more seal skin fur coats to stay warm!
-
Speaking is one thing, Jag, but action is another. Clearly other poorer countries who rely on a cheap way to make power, won't have the funds to change over to more "less emmissions" equipment and machinery.
All they want to do is survive. Especially the ones in the colder climates. Heat is the only way and if you don't have and "energy efficient" ELECTRICAL heater.....lol.......the n I guess burning wood and gas are the next best bets.
I've read many articles on the warming trend and the endless predictions of how the Earth's temp will be blah, blah in 2000 whatever, but throw in a couple of volcanic eruptions and those charts will change dramatically.
We're due for another "ice age" and before every one, there is a big warm up. Just to piss PETA off, I'll buy more seal skin fur coats to stay warm!
HAHAHAH where you around when Brian used to wear that white fur coat with the black spots? ;D
-
HAHAHAH where you around when Brian used to wear that white fur coat with the black spots? ;D
Doesn't he still wear that thing in Canada?!!! :P