Al Gore

[hnooe]

Yeah, I used to have a TNG which got 70 MPG but got rid of it, wish I still had it. You must support frequent consumption of jet fuel so I am thinking my impact is smaller. Just a guess. But then again, carbon footprints mean nothing, so have a guilt free trip to VPS.

I was BUSTED AGAIN! once by Fisher and now by Skunkape. I will have to do better homework!

 

[30A Skunkape]

I was BUSTED AGAIN! once by Fisher and now by Skunkape. I will have to do better homework!

Better use recycled paper and eco-friendly pencils for that assignment.;-)

 

[hnooe]

AL: GORE TAKES MASS TRANSIT TO PICK UP PEACE PRIZE!!! Go Albert!

 

[30A Skunkape]

AL: GORE TAKES MASS TRANSIT TO PICK UP PEACE PRIZE!!! Go Albert!

Let me see if I understand this. Al Gore has a theory that the emission of CO2 as a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion results in increased global temperatures. He has parlayed this theory into a movie, a lucrative speaking tour and a Nobel prize. He then travels across the Atlantic in a jet, burning God knows how many gallons of jet fuel in the process to accept the prize. Then he has a photo op at the train leaving the Oslo airport and this is somehow impressive symbolism and sacrifice?! This is no different than somebody going belly up to an all-you-can eat soul food buffet and thinking they have somehow impacted the caloric disaster by washing down three plates of fried chicken with a diet coke. Please.

Wouldn't it have been more eco-friendly to just have the certificate e-faxed to him? After all, he did invent the, oh, never mind:roll:

 

[Bob]

Nobody here denies that global warming exists. In fact, if you see An Inconvenient Truth, you will note the large graph of data that Al points to in his lecture that the earth has gone through numerous cycles of cooling and warming over the last 650,000 years. Unfortunately, Al focuses only on the last few years in making his leap of faith theory that says man is the primary cause of THIS cycle of warming which has only been going on for a few seconds (relatively speaking in geologic terms). He also fails to point out that we are still way, way below the zenith of temperatures that have occurred numerous times over the last 650,000 years. He also fails to point out that when the temperatures were much higher in the past, man wasn't around to cause this warming. Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that what is happening today is simply part of the natural cycle. Skunk is right, this is a political issue, with not much science to back it up.

it's a political issue if you're a conservative Repub. If you're willing to listen, there is scientific evidence of global warming. My question has always been what threat do conservatives see in lowering our emissions/pollution?

 

[30A Skunkape]

it's a political issue if you're a conservative Repub. If you're willing to listen, there is scientific evidence of global warming. My question has always been what threat do conservatives see in lowering our emissions/pollution?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not a political issue for liberals? Conservatives (and that term is not to be used interchangebly with Republicans) worry (rightly so) that there may be a rush for change that needlessly obligates OUR money (not government's money) to boondoggles. I don't think any one group advocates increased emissions or pollution. If you doubt that, please see some of Newt Gingrich's comments on global warming.

 

[hnooe]

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not a political issue for liberals? Conservatives (and that term is not to be used interchangebly with Republicans) worry (rightly so) that there may be a rush for change that needlessly obligates OUR money (not government's money) to boondoggles. I don't think any one group advocates increased emissions or pollution. If you doubt that, please see some of Newt Gingrich's comments on global warming.

"Conservative and Republican are totally interchangeable." Just check out the repub debates--not counting the Libertarian dude.

.....And I suppose in your mind, investment in alternate fuel sources in advance of the rapidly depleted oil reserves counts as a "boodoggle..."

Eureka... I can predict your response to that already--it is a liberal left wing "conspiricy" that the oil reserves are rapidly dwindling..right?

 

[30A Skunkape]

"Conservative and Republican are totally interchangeable." Just check out the repub debates--not counting the Libertarian dude.

.....And I suppose in your mind, investment in alternate fuel sources in advance of the rapidly depleted oil reserves counts as a "boodoggle..."

Eureka... I can predict your response to that already--it is a liberal left wing "conspiricy" that the oil reserves are rapidly dwindling..right?

Seriously, you seem to have a very loose grasp on political reality. There are conservative republicans and liberal republicans, as there are conservative democrats and liberal democrats. If you want to see a conservative democrat, you need look no further than your own US Congressman (Mr Boyd).

I see no problem in investing in alternative fuel sources, not so much because the green libs lie about how quickly we will be 'dry' (;-)) but rather to lean less on foreign governments for our energy needs.

 

[hnooe]

Seriously, you seem to have a very loose grasp on political reality. There are conservative republicans and liberal republicans, as there are conservative democrats and liberal democrats. If you want to see a conservative democrat, you need look no further than your own US Congressman (Mr Boyd).

I see no problem in investing in alternative fuel sources, not so much because the green libs lie about how quickly we will be 'dry' (;-)) but rather to lean less on foreign governments for our energy needs.

Yes, on the surface there are "conservative" Republicans and liberal Republicans--but like Juliani, they all meld together to become bricks in that great wall of Christain /Evangelical/Conservatism in an effort to claim very huge blocks of votes.

 

[30A Skunkape]

Yes, on the surface there are "conservative" Republicans and liberal Republicans--but like Juliani, they all meld together to become bricks in that great wall of Christain /Evangelical/Conservatism in an effort to claim very huge blocks of votes.

All the while liberal democrats do their best to avoid being labeled 'liberal' because it is political poison in a national election. Hard to win the presidency with electoral votes from two or three states...just ask Fritz Mondale or Mike Dukakis.