[excon]

Hello Cred:

If these righty's don't like the message, the just shoot the messenger.

excon

[excon]

Hello again,

Way back in the 40's, someone had suggested that we invest heavily in a project that MIGHT result in a bomb that could win the war and save the world.

If the project had been made public, I'm sure the righty's would be saying the same thing. I'm sure they would be attacking those guys as scientific buffoons as they're doing now.

Maybe guys on the right are born with their heads in the sand.

excon

[excon]

Hello again,

Besides, I'm not sure why the righty's ARE against doing something... If, for NO OTHER REASON, than it will reduce the Arab role in our future. THAT, and that alone should get them on board.

I don't understand... They WANT those Arabs to be in charge of us?? Don't make no sense to me.

Plus, a change like this COULD be and probably WILL be the economic stimulus that puts us BACK on the economic map. After all, we're really good at making NEW technology, that turns into NEW business, that makes NEW money. We LIKE that stuff, don't we??

Sure, there's the OLD industry that complains when they're out of fashion. I'm just surprised that they have so much support... Maybe the righty's are all OLD.

excon

[tomder55]

If the project had been made public,

If the project was ongoing today the NY Slimes would leak the details even if it weren't made public.

Ex ;I have been pointing to their fellow scientists who are questioning the high Priest's scientists.

Besides, I'm not sure why the righty's ARE against doing something... If, for NO OTHER REASON, than it will reduce the Arab role in our future. THAT, and that alone should get them on board.

I don't understand... They WANT those Arabs to be in charge of us?? Don't make no sense to me.

Plus, a change like this COULD be and probably WILL be the economic stimulus that puts us BACK on the economic map. After all, we're really good at making NEW technology, that turns into NEW business, that makes NEW money. We LIKE that stuff, don't we??

Sure, there's the OLD industry that complains when they're out of fashion. I'm just surprised that they have so much support... Maybe the righty's are all OLD.

Tell me when the government invested such vast sums of money on sociatal restructuring on a hunch by scientists. Normally they gamble on the word of social scientists and social engineers true enough .

You will not find any of us who are opposed to energy independence. What makes you think that any of this stuff is more than just theoretical . I've seen the government in action . In Boston they had problems digging a tunnel . I suggest that before he leads us like a pack of lemmings to a place he dreams of he pull out his calculator and honestly tell us what sacrifices he is demanding of us.Who has the power and the money to totally redirect 60% of our entire economic output and plowing it into an endeavor to prevent the sky from falling.

Everything boils down to BTU's - electricity, solar, oil, it all basically creates heat to move something or manufacture something. Oil brings it in prodigious quantities, wind and solar is minuscule.

[George_1950]

Tomder says: "Normally they gamble on the word of social scientists and social engineers true enough ."
Al Gore is a mystic and a politician out of power. He is a big-stakes gambler, as long as the stakes aren't his. The economy is his objective and he's betting with fear of CO2. He is a desperate power monger, out of power. YouTube - Global Warming

[excon]

He is a desperate power monger

Hello George:

I don't know. He WOULD be the Democratic nominee, and he would be the next pres if he wanted power.

Sooooo, he turned down the most powerful job in the Universe... Maybe power's not his game.

excon

[George_1950]

Hello George:

I dunno. He WOULD be the Democratic nominee, and he would be the next pres if he wanted power.

excon

That's your assumption, your opinion, and you're welcome to it. He got his a$$ beat once and he doesn't want it beat again. Besides, he'ld have to take a cut in pay.

[Credendovidis]

.... He is a desperate power monger, out of power.

And the back-up for that statement is a YouTube movie...
Which makes you a wild claim monger with your own hidden agenda...

:rolleyes:

·

[JimGunther]

One of the problems with the issue of global warming, and it should more rightfully be called the cycle of global warming and cooling, is that this is one of the issues where politics and science are intertwined. You can't really expect a politician to be an expert on the environment, unless that is where their educational expertise happens to be. Asking Al Gore about the environment is kind of like asking a baker how to make shoes.

[N0help4u]

Anybody that can not take a good look at Al Gore's lifestyle of being a global warming hypocrite sure can't see what its all about.

The facts on his usage are horrible!!

[excon]

Hello again,

I took a course once. The guy who wrote it was very popular... People loved him and loved what he had to say... Then the guy got into trouble. All of a sudden, people hated him and hated what he had to say...

Personally, I didn't care. I took the course because it was a good course - not because of him. It wasn't a GOOD course because of the guy who wrote it, and it wasn't a BAD course because of the guy who wrote it. The guy who wrote it was irrelevant.

Global warming IS or ISN'T happening. It ISN'T happening because the people on the left love Al Gore, and it ISN'T crap because the people on the right hate him.

HE has nothing to do with it. HE is irrelevant. I don't support HIM. I don't support his CLAIMS. I simply say, that NOT throwing our trash into our atmosphere IS a good idea. And, NOT because of CLIMATE CHANGE either. If moving to alternate fuels winds up stopping someone's perception of global warming, then it's a BONUS for us cleaning up our sky.

As mentioned earlier, if we attacked this energy crisis with the entrepreneurial spirit we have, we'll wind up creating MORE jobs than will be LOST by the death of the old oil infrastructure. It'll STOP the flow of our money to the Arabs who use it to make war on us.. It'll STOP us from having a reason to make war on them. It'll allow us to regain our leadership in the world... But, most important of all, it'll make me happy.

For THOSE reasons, among many others, we should address the problem. It doesn't matter what Al Gore says, or what you think of him. Do you value your country? Are you a patriot? Do you cherish your children's lives?

Look. I don't know if Al Gore is right or not. I don't care. All I know is that we're going to run out of oil. Who, in their right mind, think that it's going to get any cheaper as it gets scarcer?? Who, in their right mind, think we're going to leave ANY of it in the ground? Who, in their right mind, think we're not going to build nuclear power plants? Who, in their right minds, think we're going to give up our cars?

We were faced with an oil crisis in 1973. What'd we do?? Tripled our imports of oil. This crisis has been building for a long time. The wars we're involved in are a direct result of our NEED FOR OIL. Are we going to ignore this again?

SCREW Al Gore. Do it for the exconvicts of the world!

excon

[progunr]

Bravo! Bravo!

What a great post, YEAH, I liked it.

I even have this picture, of your little guy avatar, standing on a stage, fist clenched in the air, as he SHOUTS that last line!

Seriously, you are right, mostly.

I still say there is NO REASON NOT TO...

Drill now, Drill here, and pay less!!

[N0help4u]

One theory is that we are being lied to and that oil replenishes itself so it will never run out.
BUT of course the government would NEVER want us to KNOW THAT!

[Skell]

I am VERY grateful that PRESIDENT Bush has (so far at least) refused to sign on to the KYOTO. We don't need that kind of economic disaster to satisfy some ignoramus' panic over something we have no control over.

So Europe and the rest of the world that have signed Kyoto are ignoramus's?? Typical!!

[inthebox]

American Thinker Blog: Kyoto Schmyoto

If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.


Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

We're BETTER than Kyoto... nah nah nah :D

[tomder55]

Nohelp The theory the Russians have evidently adopted about oil coming from tectonic movement rather than the decay of carbon matter is worthy of further study.The whole Peak Oil concept could be bogus .

Excon

There has to be some realistic basis for this sociatal transformation .I understand your point but consider the conversions in the past. We used to light our houses and streets with whale oil . Then Edison through his experimentation created a marketable alternative. But the transformation from whale oil to electric transmission did not happen until it was proven to be a viable alternative. Only then was the infrastructure put in place to make it widely available .

Eventually I think solar cells will be able to capture enough energy to make them a viable alternative .
But we do have clean and proven effective alternatives now that we refuse to invest in .Why is that ? Why don't we extract the trillions of cubic meters of natural gas we have in reserve ? It is a clean burning alternative to oil and coal . Why are we not investing in nuclear power ? The French Breeder reactors provide almost 80% of the countries electricity needs . It recycles the waste so there is very little dangerous waste to store.

We can do this now . I have seen no evidence that a major transformation to solar and wind could replace our energy needs in 50 years ;let alone 10 years. If you challenged a child to complete college by the time that child is 12 . The challenge is most likely going to be ignored as unrealistic. If however you argue that we should move gradually towards a goal of energy independence from renewable sources as they become viable ;then I think you are speaking to a willing audience. The scientist on the Manhattan Project knew the goal was achievable ;and so did the NASA engineers . But Gore sees Orville and Wilbur Wright get their plane off the ground and then says ,we must land on the moon in 10 years.

From his 'Meet the Depressed ' interview Sunday

Tom Brokow :

The reaction was pretty quick and not all of it was favorable, even from those who are aligned with you in thinking that we have to do something about climate change. This is what Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank, had to say. "At this point I don't think there's anyone in the industry who thinks that goal, as a practical matter, could be met. This is not yet a plan for action; this is a superstretch goal." Your friends at MIT, the Energy Initiative Group up there, and they have some radical ideas as well. They said, "Can we do it this quickly? It would be very, very tough." What you have outlined, in fact, is a goal that may not be achievable.

Gore ;without answering the question about it being possible went into his standard Chicken-Little sky is falling rhetoric about us not having more than 10 years . He then goes on to make your argument that the pay back would be worth the cost;ignoring the astronomical costs that every American would have to pay in the interim. He says he would restructure THE ENTIRE TAX COLLECTION SYSTEM to pay for the transition. So now a new tax structure is to be included in his complete transformation of American Society . Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin (both 5 year plans )would be proud!!

Al Gore lies to us . He says his 10,000 square-ft. "yurt" is carbon neutral (or some such bs. ) But the truth is that he uses about 191,000 kilowatt hours per year while us average schmoes average 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year. So yeah ; the messenger is important . What you say he isn't ? Then why do people point out the hypocrisy of other high priests when their conduct doesn't match their rhetoric ?

[N0help4u]

Al Gore lies to us . He says his 10,000 square-ft. "yurt" is carbon neutral (or some such bs. ) But the truth is that he uses about used about 191,000 kilowatt hours per year while us average schmoes average 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year. So yeah ; the messenger is important . What you say he isn't ? Then why do people point out the hypocrisy of other high priests when their conduct doesn't match their rhetoric ?

That doesn't even include the high fuel costs for his plane and SUV's

[George_1950]

He says he would restructure THE ENTIRE TAX COLLECTION SYSTEM to pay for the transition. So now a new tax structure is to be included in his complete transformation of American Society . Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin (both 5 year plans )would be proud !!!!!

Mao, Stalin, and Hitler; I have no use for Ross Perot (or Boone Pickens, for that matter), but he would say, "The devil's in the details." So, what would Gore do with so many Americans who would just tell him to "drop dead!"? Hillarycare was going to prosecute them and doctors; "land of the free, home of the brave"? Gore and his left-wing friends are out of control, at this point, and appear to have no concept of individualism and freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

[Credendovidis]

I simply say, that NOT throwing our trash into our atmosphere IS a good idea.

Precisely excon ! It is not the messenger : it is the message that is important.
Whatever your views on global warming etc. it does not hurt to reduce pollution of atmosphere and oceans other than may be in the pocket.
And if you take the unfair usage of energy in the world into account, there is nothing to say against more sharing of all remaining resources on a fair scale.

;)

[Credendovidis]

If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

We're BETTER than Kyoto... nah nah nah :D

No wonder if you relate the US wasting to the situation in Europe, where we have been following a limiting campaign for energy consumption and pollution already since the late 1970's (Club of Rome report).

Better stop the "we're better than Kyoto....nah nah nah" US chest beating, and return to reality...

:rolleyes: