Who for president

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig

Back at you...You must live in a small town, I see the absurb amount of smog and pollution everyday here in Phoenix, and being from Seattle....Sure ignore it, it will go away. Have you seen a picture of Beijing lately? They are going to force every factory to shut down 2 weeks before the Olympics next summer just so no one sees how bad it is over there. Ignore it....The South Pole was not the only thing he addressed in the documentary that you obviously didn't watch.
I live near Dallas.
I do see pollution... I also have seen the data for the past 2,000 years showing wild temperature fluctuations. Obviously industry didn't cause this. So what makes the current warming different?
I've never said the planet is not warming, Nor have I said cleaning up the environment is a bad thing. I'm just arguing the science is not proving what Gore and other's are trying to say it does. They selectively take only the scientists and studies they want and ignore all the other facts.
We need all of the facts before we can address the issue. We'll never get those if Gore and other's continue to lead a movement like a bunch of lemmings off the cliff.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Last time I checked stem research was not banned (i love the phrase "ethical stem cell research"). Federal funding was banned. Quite a difference.
You're right, I mistyped. But there is no good reason that federal funds should be withheld from using to-be-discarded cells to research cures to disease that affect millions (or even one... better than the incinerator).

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by reefernana
Go Hillary............

.............

and it would be even more perfect if Al was her running mate, too bad that would never happen though.

Californians

What are we to do?

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman

If he was passionate about it he'd have changed his lifestyle....
For instance, NASA, that has continued to report the ice flows at the South Pole that have grown substantially in the past 20 years, or the over 19,000 scientists that signed the Global Warming Petition stating in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."
Assuming the evidence isn't overwhelming and that credible scientists are truly in disagreement: why the vehement opposition to changing a lifestyle that we know is untenable in the long run anyway? Say only 50% of people who know enough to give a good opinion think "catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate" will happen... 50/50 shot... with relatively tremendous stakes... i'd err on the side of caution. Then of course remember that the vast majority of credible scientists agree that global warming is real and could have serious consequences.
I'm not arguing about the validity of the facts. They are what they are, and as with all science, people will choose to disregard them as it fits what they'd like to be true (you can say I am doing the same, and you'd be very clever, so don't bother). Overwhelming evidence has never been enough for some people.
Regardless of whether or not you think climate change is going to be important, surely you realize energy reform has less theoretical implications. How strong is our country if it is hopelessly tethered to a volatile region, much of which hates us, for our energy? American has the technology to covert to sustainable, clean (believe global warming or not, burning oil is nasty business) energy and end our dependence on foreign oil. That seems like something everyone should be able to get behind.

 

[reefraff]

I love how the left labels any scientist that doesn't buy into man made global warming as "being paid to dessent" rather than debating them on the facts.
If Algore is so fabulous why is it that a judge in the UK ruled that students must be told his movie contains multiple inaccuracies and is unbalanced in the presentation of facts. The judge ruled 9 specific items were either incorrect or not supported by the evidence. Even the Global Climate Change Commission disagrees with some of the assertions he made in the movie.

 

[sambasam]

Originally Posted by reefraff
I love how the left labels any scientist that doesn't buy into man made global warming as "being paid to dessent" rather than debating them on the facts.
If Algore is so fabulous why is it that a judge in the UK ruled that students must be told his movie contains multiple inaccuracies and is unbalanced in the presentation of facts. The judge ruled 9 specific items were either incorrect or not supported by the evidence. Even the Global Climate Change Commission disagrees with some of the assertions he made in the movie.
are you kidding me? dude no global warming? how about you ride your unicorn back to fairytale land

 

[reefraff]

Who said no global warming?

 

[rudedog40]

I noticed there's a slight lean on the Democratic ticket in this thread. Most likely because of the realization that the Republicans don't have a chance after Bush botched things up (that should stir the pot). Gore would be an intersting mix to the Democratic side. But after winning the Nobel prize, I think he's more interested in continuing with his environmental trek than wasting his time in the White House. He can get more accomplished in the private sector.
If the Democrats want a sure win, they need to run the Hillary/Obama ticket. You get both the woman vote and the black vote. Plus you have Bill in the background telling Hillary how to handle the international policies. She'll just have to make sure there's no interns walking around in blue dresses to distract him.

 

[1journeyman]

Itom, I agree with much of what you just said.
Here's the danger though. First off, Gore doesn't believe what he's preaching. If he did he would change his own lifestyle. He hasn't. Instead he pays for "carbon offsets" which science has proven are virtually worthless. He is wealthy enough to write a check for absolution, while asking most Americans to walk or ride bicycles to work.
We need energy reform, however many of the same groups decrying the energy industry oppose the most efficient form of energy we currently have (nuclear). I'm all for following France's lead (make note of that statement because it's probably the first and last time I'll ever say it...) and going 100% nuclear.
This doesn't address the real issue though. The real issue is making political decisions based on hype and flawed science. Take Silent Spring for example (Gore wrote the foreword of the latest publishing I believe). This book spearheaded the abolishment of DDT. Now, guess what... Science has taken a better, less politically charged examination of DDT. While DDT was banned malaria cases in Africa soared. One official of the NIH estimates up to 20 million children died due to the ban of DDT (the cheapest most effective treatment for mosquitos). Silent Spring used flawed tests, outright fabrications and faulty interpretations on data (sound familiar?) to change world policy. As a direct result millions needlessly died. The problem wasn't DDT, it was DDT being used improperly.
That's my fear. That we are following the same Piper as the masses followed in the 70's.
Prove that pollution is causing global warming. Don't try to associate pollution with rising temperatures. You must prove a correlation between the two.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
.... Plus you have Bill in the background telling Hillary how to handle the international policies. ....
She doesn't need Bill to direct international policy. Bill's plan was simple;
*Let our military become as extension of the UN.
*Run from any conflict
*Ignore terrorists
*Sell out Israel
*Weaken our military
*Give countries like Korea a wink and a nod while they develop nuclear weapons
*Accept bribes from china in return for satellite technology....
She's already started taking bribes from china, is backing down from a conflict with Iran, and has made it clear she will bow to the alter of the UN so I'd say she's got it down....

 

[reefernana]

Originally Posted by Darknes

Californians

What are we to do?

And your meaning??? Just cuz we got it all, and I'm not just a Californian, I'm a 3rd generation Californian. The product of many fine Democrats, thank you very much! And very proud of it, too.............

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
She doesn't need Bill to direct international policy. Bill's plan was simple;
*Let our military become as extension of the UN.
*Run from any conflict
*Ignore terrorists
*Sell out Israel
*Weaken our military
*Give countries like Korea a wink and a nod while they develop nuclear weapons
*Accept bribes from china in return for satellite technology....
She's already started taking bribes from china, is backing down from a conflict with Iran, and has made it clear she will bow to the alter of the UN so I'd say she's got it down....

LOL. Yea, let's start the Iraq thread up again. I know your stance on that waste of time. Just look at the polls. If the Bush/Gore race were run again today, not even King George's brother could find enough hanging chads to get him reelected.

 

[fishycpa]

If you think Bush's poll numbers are bad, take a look at the Democratic Congress' numbers...especially Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
We need energy reform, however many of the same groups decrying the energy industry oppose the most efficient form of energy we currently have (nuclear). I'm all for following France's lead (make note of that statement because it's probably the first and last time I'll ever say it...) and going 100% nuclear.
Prove that pollution is causing global warming. Don't try to associate pollution with rising temperatures. You must prove a correlation between the two.
Nuclear is an option, of course, and it addresses a few of the major concerns about oil. I consider it a good thing, and I'm proud that SC derives most of its energy from nuclear. However, nuclear, while clean if we keep it that way, has the potential to be incredibly dirty, beyond imagination. For the US to go all nuclear, I'm not sure what it'd take... 1000 reactors? Those produce a lot of waste that takes forever to become safe again (I come from Aiken, SC, ie the Savannah River Site... all they do is try to get rid of nuclear waste). Plus, the chances of a catastrophic incidence only increase with the number of reactors. The logistics of nuclear can be scary and while it seems good b/c we currently have the technology to do this on a huge scale, I still like truly clean sources of energy like solar, wind, and water. Nuclear may be our best transition between oil and clean energy, but I think our goal has to be conversion to these safe natural sources... eventually.
Regarding correlations... I feel that that has already been proven. Since records have been kept the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing, corresponding to increased dependence on motor vehicles and industrialization. Temperature has risen accordingly, but of course not exactly in sync due to the wide variation caused by competing weather systems. It is also known from a simple logic/controlled experimental standpoint that having more carbon dioxide in the air retains more solar energy. Sadly I fear I'm referring to "data" that you believe is falsified, so maybe we're at an impasse on that point. I feel that the increase in temperature isn't in question as much as the impact that it will have is. As much as we can predict catastrophic results, it's also possible that it won't change a thing... unless of course you believe the changes have already begun.
Ok, everyone have a good day. Time for another long one in class.

 

[reefraff]

http://www.globalwarming.org/

 

[phunckie]

My vote is for Ron Paul.
The ONLY candidate who is promoting taking the US back to government by the CONSTITUTION!!!!
The only candidate who will NOT give up any more of the United States' sovreignty to the UN or ANY other international body.
The only candidate with responsible fiscal policy.
He wants to stop using our troops to police the world and start using them for their original purpose- to protect the United States.
He has already submitted legislation in Congress to abolish the IRS and do away with the Federal Income Tax.
He is the ONLY candidate that will restore the United States government to what the founding fathers intended and outlined it to be in the Constitution.
Oh... and he's also the only Republican candidate that has a PRAYER of defeating Hillary.

 

[fishycpa]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/c...003419,00.html
http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/i...cies-gore.html
...those are just a few of the problems with Gore...I know this is not a global warming thread, sorry for the hijack.

 

[ice4ice]

Vote for me for Prez ...

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by phunckie
My vote is for Ron Paul.
The ONLY candidate who is promoting taking the US back to government by the CONSTITUTION!!!!
The only candidate who will NOT give up any more of the United States' sovreignty to the UN or ANY other international body.
The only candidate with responsible fiscal policy.
He wants to stop using our troops to police the world and start using them for their original purpose- to protect the United States.
He has already submitted legislation in Congress to abolish the IRS and do away with the Federal Income Tax.
He is the ONLY candidate that will restore the United States government to what the founding fathers intended and outlined it to be in the Constitution.
Oh... and he's also the only Republican candidate that has a PRAYER of defeating Hillary.

Who IS Ron Paul?
Sorry, but I've never heard of half of these candidates that are running. What hole did Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and the other unknowns crawl out of to run for president? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having new blood come into the mix of politics to shake things up. Unfortunately, 60% of the voting public make their vote on name alone. Most of them don't even look at all the issues, and what the candidate is for or against. They just pull the switch on the name they see the most in the headlines. I don't agree with many of Hillary's policies, but if you look at all the Democratic polls, she's always on the top. Why? Because it's 'Hillary', wife of Bill, Mr. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." She gets all the publicity because her current campaign budget is over $25 MILLION. Winning the presidency isn't about issues any longer. It's about how much money you can raise and spend to make yourself known. Ron Paul may very well be the best candidate. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the name or the money it will take to win it.

 

[fishycpa]

If you don't know who someone is, then wikipedia them...it is the best way to find out about people. Also, visit their website. Voters need to be informed before they vote, not voting for a name, that is being a responsible citizen.