Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Calling Al Gore: Where are you? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=303015)

  • Apr 19, 2009, 05:42 AM
    speechlesstx
    More from those scientists who "don't know squat":

    Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

    Quote:

    ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

    The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

    Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

    However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

    East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".


    Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

    "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

    The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

    Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

    Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

    Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

    "Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

    Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

    A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
    And yet Obama's EPA has joined the consensus to declare the hazards of greenhouse gases including CO2 so he can push his agenda forward. And don't call me silly, it's much sillier to follow this chicken little environmental nonsense in the face of the volumes of contradictory evidence. Clean air is great, recycling is wonderful, don't throw your trash into the air or in my yard... but do it for the right reasons. I didn't drink the Koolaid.
  • Jun 7, 2009, 05:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" -Barack Obama in his nomination victory speech

    Studies Predict Rapid Rise in Sea Levels Along U.S. East Coast

    By David A. Fahrenthold
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, June 5, 2009; 11:12 AM

    Quote:

    Sea levels could rise faster along the U.S. East Coast than in any other densely populated part of the world, new research shows, as changes in ice caps and ocean currents push water toward a shoreline inlaid with cities, resort boardwalks and gem-rare habitats.

    Three studies this year, including one out last week, have made newly worrisome forecasts about life along the Atlantic over the next century. While the rest of the world might see seven to 23 inches of sea-level rise by 2100, the studies show this region might get that and more -- 17 to 25 inches more -- for a total increase that would submerge a beach chair.

    Might.

    Scientists say the information comes from computer models, which could be wrong. And the mid-Atlantic region's ample high ground means it will probably never be as vulnerable as Louisiana and Florida.

    But some are already sketching a new vision for the East Coast, as a region under siege by the ocean. In the coming decades, they say, it will probably be necessary to spend heavily to defend some waterside places -- and to make hard choices about where to let the sea win.

    "There will probably be some very difficult decisions that have to be made," said Rob Thieler, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. "Are there places where we should simply retreat because the cost of holding the line is unacceptably high?"

    Today, the governors of coastal states from New York to Virginia are scheduled to release an agreement on Atlantic Ocean issues, including the need to prepare for sea-level rise. The governors will pledge to identify places and facilities most vulnerable to high water, including port areas, parts of the power grid and other infrastructure.
    Oops, I guess it will have to be another moment. I have to give kudos to this reporter for emphasizing the "might" because computer models "could be wrong." But it could just be that since we have a believer in the White House now and more scientists are voicing their disagreement with the consensus, now might be a good time to change the tone and get away with it? Nah, not until we fully bow at the altar of environmentalism.
  • Jun 7, 2009, 03:14 PM
    N0help4u

    I want to drown Gore and everybody that is so brainwashed to believe him in the Artic!!

    I had the furnace on June 5th!!
  • Jun 8, 2009, 05:18 AM
    tomder55
    If NYC got swamped it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world. Besides that ;I live far enough inland that I might end up with beach front property.:D
  • Jun 8, 2009, 06:30 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    If NYC got swamped it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world. Besides that ;I live far enough inland that I might end up with beach front property.:D

    I like the optimism, tom. :D
  • Jun 8, 2009, 09:53 PM
    amdeist
    We don't have to worry about global warming. Sometime before that destroys our planet, an asteroid will make contact with earth and will end human life.
  • Jun 9, 2009, 06:01 AM
    excon

    Hello:

    I woke up this morning, and the war was over. I can tell because I didn't see it in my neighborhood.

    excon
  • Jun 9, 2009, 06:14 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello:

    I woke up this morning, and the war was over. I can tell because I didn't see it in my neighborhood.

    At least you based it on observation and not computer models.
  • Jun 9, 2009, 07:07 AM
    tomder55
    If that were the standard then I think our point is proven .

    According to Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi, areas from the northern Plains into the Northeast will have a "year without a summer."
    http://www.accuweather.com/news-stor...hg=1&article=9
  • Jun 9, 2009, 04:36 PM
    Skell

    Speech / Tom

    As I've said before I'm not completely convinced either. But, for all the silly reports you link about cold weather here and there or another group of scientists who are pessimists about climate change there are reports about hot weather (see my previous link about the most severe bush fires our country has ever experienced) and another group of scientists who claim global warming is very real and man made.

    I read a report yesterday (ill try and find the link) that more than 100 of the worlds leading climate studies institutions are convinced that the current rate of global warming is more than a natural trend. There is ample data to make claim that is in fact very much man made.

    What is your big problem with the world trying to clean up its act? Sure you don't like Gore. We already knew that. And we know you won't like whatever policy Obama puts in place. We know that too. Or is it simply the scientists you have a thing against. Does it threaten you?

    But the constant denying that something needs to be done is just plain ridiculous and is actually getting boring.

    The world is over Gore and in fact none of us even really care about what he has to say. You guys might still be transfixed on him in the states but the rest of the world has moved on to listening to responsible and reputable science institutes of which there are many saying that we need to do something.
  • Jun 9, 2009, 04:45 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Skell View Post
    What is your big problem with the world trying to clean up its act? Sure you don't like Gore. We already knew that. And we know you won't like whatever policy Obama puts in place. We know that too. Or is it simply the scientists you have a thing against. Does it threaten you?

    Asked and answered many times. I'm all for clean air, clean water, taking care of this place. I'm against a forced agenda that's going to drastically alter our lives based on very questionable 'science.' It's an agenda that has outright rejected debate, labeled and demonized dissenters and even gone so far as to brand some of us criminals for daring to question the consensus. That's ridiculous Skell, and we're the ones being told to have an open mind about it.

    Quote:

    But the constant denying that something needs to be done is just plain ridiculous and is actually getting boring.
    That's the problem Skell, everyone talks about the 'denial' but won't discuss the reasons for it.

    Quote:

    The world is over Gore
    He's the poster child.
  • Jun 9, 2009, 05:08 PM
    Skell

    How will your life be drastically altered? Sincere question? You may shed some light for me.

    And Gore is your poster child Bit like your mate Rush is the Dem's poster child for the Pub's.

    As I said there are countless other very reputable scientists and institutions who refute your claims.
  • Jun 9, 2009, 05:25 PM
    inthebox

    Quote:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_12548887


    ... former Vice President Al Gore — co-founder of San Francisco-based Current TV, for which the journalists work — could be sent to North Korea to negotiate for their release.


    Maybe Al Gore should offer to be the hostage in exchange for the freedom of the 2 journalists that work for him?





    G&P
  • Jun 9, 2009, 05:28 PM
    Skell

    Again, if the best you guys have got is to attack Al Gore and link to articles about cold weather then you really have no argument at all.
  • Jun 9, 2009, 08:26 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Skell View Post
    Again, if the best you guys have got is to attack Al Gore and link to articles about cold weather then you really have no argument at all.

    Skell, I've long thought The Goracle was irrelevant but I'm not the one who has held him up as some sort of environmental god... I think he should have stuck to his internet creation.
  • Jun 9, 2009, 10:18 PM
    Skell

    Nearly every page here has posts from you guys referring to Gore. In fact you guys are about the only people I still hear talking about him. So the fact that continue to do so long after his day in the sun means you are doing anything but thinking he is irrelevant.

    I've never even seen his documentary. I'd heard of climate change long before he came along. I actually think he is irrelevant, along with your snowing in Texas stories. It's the countless other scientists who are saying we need to have a look at what we are doing that I do find relevant and think you should maybe pause to listen to just a bit longer than you do to Gore.
  • Jun 9, 2009, 10:32 PM
    inthebox

    Yeah I think the climate HAS BEEN CHANGING, even before humans came to dominate the earth.

    And we are talking about Gore - it is in th title of the OP.






    G&P
  • Jun 10, 2009, 04:00 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    What is your big problem with the world trying to clean up its act?
    As Steve said we have never objected that.Nobody I know of objects to sensible changes that are not draconian life-altering changes imposed based on a very questionable premise.

    Our government is now desperately trying to insitutute cap and trade. Their concern is not the climate change. They need the revenue to pay for the funding gaps in their proposed health care ideas. They make no secret about that . But they can't sell it to America that way . That is where those so called worlds leading climate studies institutions run cover for their policies.

    Well the number of reputable scientists who dispute their claims is growing as the hysteria is replaced with genuine study.


    The undeniable fact is that the globe has been warming since the glaciers of the last ice age. I live on or near the edge of the glacier advance and I can tell you that where I live was fertile farm land long before the introduction of the internal combustion engine.
  • Jun 11, 2009, 10:13 AM
    speechlesstx
    Yep, another climate change update...

    Not So Windy: Research suggests winds dying down

    Quote:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States. And the cause, ironically, may be global warming — the very problem wind power seeks to address.

    The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening. But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East.

    "It's a very large effect," said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University. In some places in the Midwest, the trend shows a 10 percent drop or more over a decade. That adds up when the average wind speed in the region is about 10 to 12 miles per hour.

    There's been a jump in the number of low or no wind days in the Midwest, said the study's lead author, Sara Pryor, an atmospheric scientist at Indiana University.

    Wind measurements plotted out on U.S. maps by Pryor show wind speeds falling mostly along and east of the Mississippi River. Some areas that are banking on wind power, such as west Texas and parts of the Northern Plains, do not show winds slowing nearly as much. Yet, states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, northern Maine and western Montana show some of the biggest drop in wind speeds.
    Just thought I'd highlight that part about "speculative" and disagreement. I don't know about you guys, but I'd consider the wind slowing down in these parts a blessing. Here in the High Plains our trees tend to lean to the north permanently due to the prevailing winds.
  • Jun 11, 2009, 10:51 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    As Steve said we have never objected that. Nobody I know of objects to sensible changes that are not draconian life-altering changes imposed based on a very questionable premise.

    Hello again, tom (you too, Steve):

    You're trying to have it both ways.

    We've had this discussion before - about throwing our trash into the air. You SEEM to say that you don't mind cleaning up that kind of stuff, as long as it's "sensible"...

    But, this is where I'm confused. Either throwing trash into the air is just fine, or it isn't. If it ISN'T fine, and you're willing to cut back, then it kind of looks like you indeed, accept the premise... Yet, you BOTH continually use the term "questionable" when you speak of it.

    Plus, if you didn't accept the premise, why on earth would you accept ANY change at all, sensible or not? If you righty's came up with dingbat stuff, I'd call you on it. I'd tell you there AIN'T no dingbat stuff, and there's NO "sensible" response to dingbat stuff. But, that's just what I'd do.

    So, which way is it?

    excon
  • Jun 11, 2009, 11:37 AM
    tomder55
    Simple there are unrelated issues besides the climate that we are thinking of... like human health .

    That is why I at least do not object to taking measures to reduce the amt of "trash " as you call it into the air.

    However ,I never have ,and never will call CO2 "trash" . Nor do I think that the emission of CO2 is a health concern. Contrary ,I think C02 is an essential component of the atmosphere.Plants and things grow because of it.

    When the planet was warm and green there was plenty of it . Then there was climate change and there was less C02 and glaciers grew all the way to where I live in NY . When the glaciers grew the amt of life shrunk and it was misery and a tough existence for the remaining life.

    Who's to say that the warming is not the natural state of the planet ? Certainly not these so called scientists who are basing their findings on information that is in such a short time frame of planetary history that their conclusions cannot be based on anything except preconceived ideas .

    Why is climate change a concern when change is the constant ? And on what basis besides an agenda is there a conclusion that our emissions are the cause ? None .

    So ,yes... put scrubbers on smoke stacks .Convert to clean burning efficient breeder reactor nuclear energy .(you never hear them advocating this sensible solution) . There are good reasons that convince me that makes sense,and there are things that can be done that are not economy destroyers . But don't try to sucker me with chicken little mumbo jumbo disguised as scientific fact to force feed a enviro-marxist agenda down my throat .
  • Jun 11, 2009, 11:44 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    But, this is where I'm confused. Either throwing trash into the air is just fine, or it isn't. If it ISN'T fine, and you're willing to cut back, then it kind of looks like you indeed, accept the premise... Yet, you BOTH continually use the term "questionable" when you speak of it.

    I use "questionable" when referring to the 'science' behind the agenda which has most often been used by the media, environmentalists and left-leaning politicians as propaganda. There's no question that clean air is a good thing - regardless of the validity of climate change.

    Quote:

    Plus, if you didn't accept the premise, why on earth would you accept ANY change at all, sensible or not?
    Answered numerous times already. Who doesn't like clean air, clean water and appreciate not having to pick up the refuse of others from their yard. Who wants to go camping, fishing or hiking and see piles of trash left behind? On the other hand, who wants the feds controlling your thermostat or being forced to drive an unsafe tin-box of a car with holes for a floorboard for our Flintstone feet to get 'er going? Why are we going to muck up the landscape with thousands of wind generators (except near Hyannisport) but not build any nuclear power stations with proven technology?

    I'm in the fire suppression business, why hasn't CO2 been banned if it's such a dangerous gas? Why don't we have rules for recycling the gas in extinguishers and beverage cylinders like we do for halogenated agents, some of which have been banned?

    When those on the side of climate change decide to have an honest discussion with an open mind I'll listen, but I'm not too keen on having this crap forced down my throat. I thought you were a bit of a rebel, too.
  • Jul 8, 2009, 07:48 AM
    speechlesstx
    Yesterday at a forum, The Goracle compared the battle against climate to change to the battle against Nazis.

    Quote:

    Al Gore invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill yesterday when he urged political leaders to follow the example of Britain’s wartime leader in the battle against climate change.

    The former US Vice-President accused governments around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid taking difficult decisions.

    Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War Two. We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource.”

    Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as that from Hitler.
    Also, the Times has scrubbed the article of its reference to Nazis... minus the browser header which still does at this time.

    http://deceiver.com/wp-content/uploa...wserheader.png

    Let's see, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, climate change has killed how many people? And some of you wonder why we rail against this nonsense?
  • Jul 8, 2009, 07:59 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Let's see, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, climate change has killed how many people? And some of you wonder why we rail against this nonsense?

    Hello Steve:

    You DO understand, don't you, that the effects of global warming WILL kill a bunch of people. Could it be 6 million?? It could! The Goracle is the canary in the coal mine. I don't know if we had one of them BEFORE Hitler killed 6 million people, but maybe 6 million people would be alive if we did. And, if we DID have one, I'll bet there would be people like you who made fun of him.

    excon
  • Jul 8, 2009, 08:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello Steve:

    You DO understand, don't you, that the effects of global warming WILL kill a bunch of people. Could it be 6 million??? It could! The Goracle is the canary in the coal mine. I dunno if we had one of them BEFORE Hitler killed 6 million people, but maybe 6 million people would be alive if we did. And, if we DID have one, I'll bet there would be people like you who made fun of him.

    And Saddam Hussein COULD have had WMD's. I remember all the chiding about arguments on the POTENTIAL threat from Hussein based on questionable intelligence, I think you participated in that chiding did you not? By that example it should be perfectly reasonable to chide the climate change doomsayers for the POTENTIAL threat from climate change based on questionable science in the face of evidence of an 8-year downward trend in global temperatures and a growing number of reputable scientists that are challenging the consensus.

    Bush was roundly condemned for fear mongering, ‘lying’ about Iraq, cooking the evidence and otherwise not having an honest discussion prior to beginning the offensive. Gore and the other climate doomsayers have earned this criticism for the same reasons. The double standards on this are ridiculous.
  • Jul 8, 2009, 08:27 AM
    tomder55

    Gore is desperate because he is losing the narrative. The facts are becoming inconvenient truths .
    That is why he is shifting his narrative to other things than the science to things almost metaphysical .

    The thing even more bizarre from his Oxford speech was not the Nazi reference . It was his foray into human psychology . He said climate change, is "ultimately a problem of consciousness". ..... "What is being tested is the proposition of whether or not the combination of an opposable thumb and a neocortex is a viable construct on this planet".
    He said that evolution has taught men to react to real physical threat but did a poor job teaching us to react to abstract threats like civilization killers. But he takes heart in the fact that once the human conscious is at one with the problem the collective will move rapidly to solve the problem..

    Weird .
  • Jul 8, 2009, 08:31 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Weird .

    Hello tom:

    Yeah, he's weird. Einstein was weird too. Freud?? Bonkers! Newton?? All screwed up!

    Your point?

    excon
  • Jul 8, 2009, 08:33 AM
    speechlesstx
    LOL, he's starting to sound like Mrs. Kucinich.
  • Aug 20, 2009, 08:50 AM
    speechlesstx
    This is why I am skeptical of apocalyptic climate change claims...



    Quote:

    The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake."

    Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled "Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts," which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

    Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

    "I don't think it will be melting by 2030. ... That may have been a mistake," he said.

    Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

    The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing "misleading information" and using "exaggeration and alarmism."

    Leipold's admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

    Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization's practice of "emotionalizing issues" in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

    Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

    "We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model," Leipold said. "If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary."
    The arctic ice will be completely melted by 2030... but that may have been a mistake. He doesn't really think it will be melted by then, he can't vouch for the claim and he thinks it's fine to scare the public. I appreciate his honesty...
  • Aug 20, 2009, 10:29 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

    "We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model," Leipold said. "If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary."
    This really gets to the crux of the issue and reveals the true goals of the environ-mental-cases.

    Leipold seems to be stating quite clearly that his goal is THE SUPPRESSION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.

    It is possible to grow an economy without having a deliterious effect on the climate. Cleaner fuels would accomplish that. NUCLEAR POWER would accomplish that. Clean coal burning would do it. Natural gas would do it. We don't need to prevent economic growth to protect the climate. We can grow the economy safely.

    But his goal isn't really to prevent climate change. It is to prevent ECONOMIC GROWTH. Climate change is just an excuse.

    I think Leipold let a bit of his true agenda slip out accidentally.

    Elliot
  • Aug 20, 2009, 10:53 AM
    speechlesstx

    Actually El, I think it goes beyond that to "social justice."

    "The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model... "
  • Aug 20, 2009, 11:00 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Actually El, I think it goes beyond that to "social justice."

    "The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model..."

    Good point. It's not as if POOR people don't use energy too, to heat homes, drive cars, etc. But he only seems concerned with the RICH people who use energy. I wonder why that is...

    Leipold's basic assumptions SEEM to be:
    Rich people are bad.
    Industry is bad.
    Economic growth is bad.
    Poor people, though, should get a pass.

    Elliot
  • Aug 20, 2009, 11:34 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Good point. It's not as if POOR people don't use energy too, to heat homes, drive cars, etc. But he only seems concerned with the RICH people who use energy. I wonder why that is...

    Leipold's basic assumptions SEEM to be:
    Rich people are bad.
    Industry is bad.
    Economic growth is bad.
    Poor people, though, should get a pass.

    Elliot


    That also works for the health care debate.
  • Aug 20, 2009, 12:07 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    That also works for the health care debate.

    Actually, it is a general liberal attitude, and it is one of the basic thought processes that explain their agenda.


    Some others are:
    • Violence never solved anything.
    • Everything has to be fair, which is to say that everyone has to be the same.
    • If there were no differences between people, there would be no wars.
    • If there were no distinctions between good and evil, there would be no wars.
    • Government are there to solve all your problems and are fundamentally good and benevolent.
    • All corporations are just out to get you and take advantage of you and must therefore be stopped by the government which is there to solve all your problems.

    These concepts are the ones that determine liberal policy. The fact that HISTORY has proven each of these concepts to be fundamentaly wrong or flawed doesn't change the fact that they are the basic concepts of liberalism.

    Elliot
  • Aug 20, 2009, 12:43 PM
    speechlesstx

    Yep.
  • Aug 20, 2009, 01:30 PM
    speechlesstx

    I love it, carbon traders were arrested in the UK for not paying the taxes.

    Quote:

    British officials said the people arrested could be part of an organized group that operated a network of companies trading large volumes of the permits. The officials did not name those arrested. The agency said the fraud was carried out by companies in the network that bought the carbon permits outside of Britain without paying Value Added Tax, a levy known as V.A.T.

    The companies in the network are suspected of adding the V.A.T. to the price of the permits, which they sold in Britain. The companies then disappeared before paying the tax to British authorities.

    Last month, Britain exempted carbon trading from the V.A.T. to curb the possibility of similar cases in the future. France and the Netherlands took similar steps earlier in the summer. Even so, the tax agency said it “still intends to pursue relentlessly those that may have used carbon credit trading to cheat the public purse.”
    I also love the solution to the problem, scrap the tax and you won't have any violators. I can see it now, the mob is probably already positioning itself for the new cap and trade market.
  • Aug 20, 2009, 01:44 PM
    ETWolverine

    I can see it now... greasy men in long black coats in the streets saying, "Pssst, got some carbon credits for ya... real cheap. Check it out... whadya mean 'where'd I get 'em?' They fell offa da truck."

    Elliot
  • Aug 20, 2009, 01:51 PM
    galveston

    Heritage Foundation reports that the cap & trade bill requires us to reduce CO2 output by 83% from 2005 levels.

    What are the plants going to take in to produce oxygen?

    If the population of the world continues to grow (or even remains the same) we are going to need a LOT of plants.

    These eco-idiots have a suicide complex, and they want to take US with them!

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM.