Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This email must be making the rounds again. My question is, so what is the point of this? That politicians don't always practice what they preach? This is news to nobody.
... so what then is the conclusion of this matter? Is it that because Al Gore isn't quite the ecco-hippie that everyone thinks he ought to be then his whole point is completely invalidated and nobody then has to give a crap about how he or she lives?
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,468,820 times
Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evlevo
The energy that Al Gore's house uses actually causes the uncontested facts in "Inconvenient Truth" to suddenly be wrong I guess that is only possible in the world of "I don't believe in Evolution".
Man, Gore may not be exactly doing his part, but that hardly makes the problem of global warming go away. Saying it does is like saying Christianity has been proven wrong because of pedophile priests, Rev. Ted Haggart, and "sinners" like Jimmy Swaggart. Ideas can remain true even if the supporters turn out to be idiots.
Maybe you missed it. It is the obvious hypocrisy of Gordo that is stunning. By the way there are many scientists that disagree but as usual any opposing view is silenced (must be a result of all that free speech you guys talk about).
Maybe you missed it. It is the obvious hypocrisy of Gordo that is stunning. By the way there are many scientists that disagree but as usual any opposing view is silenced (must be a result of all that free speech you guys talk about).
Please post some prominent scientists (that means no one on the oil company payroll, or working for Free Republic, etc) who disagree with what is in "Inconvenient Truth" and enlighten us all with how inaccurate it is (no reprints from Sean Hannity's website either).
Have you even seen this film which you seem to hate so much?
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,468,820 times
Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evlevo
Please post some prominent scientists (that means no one on the oil company payroll, or working for Free Republic, etc) who disagree with what is in "Inconvenient Truth" and enlighten us all with how inaccurate it is (no reprints from Sean Hannity's website either).
Have you even seen this film which you seem to hate so much?
Could you post where I have said I hate the film Inconvenient Truth?
LOL... went to see that movie, just 'cause. Most of what was presented has been hashed over for the last twenty or so years. Now we learn that NASA has miscalculated the dates and instead of the warming starting in the 1990's it started in the 1920's. But it's cooled since then so I figured I'd put off believing the 'global warming' freaks until they start acting like they believe it. Yeah, I know. We live in two Americas.... a cold one and a hot one.
The only 'inconvenient truth' was when Gore introduced himself as 'the man who used to be the next pres....'
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,468,820 times
Reputation: 382
Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.
Much like cows (more...), bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon gas. Cows pose the same problem.
-------------------------------------------------
Now here is the real problem. Looks like fodder for a new movie. I would hate to be the one to have to sniff out the culprits! LOL
By the way there are many scientists that disagree but as usual any opposing view is silenced (must be a result of all that free speech you guys talk about).
sheep indeed, taking your cues from a wingnut site.... By the way, you can keep saying that "there are many scientists that disagree..." but that doesn't make it true.
The science community around the world has spoken on this matter.
However, if you want to go with the onces financed by BP that's fine.
Scientists can work for BP just like doctors worked for tobacco.
As opposed to someone responsible for burning how many thousands of gallons of jet fuel to carry how many people on frequent vacations that have most certainly not been earned by any great accomplishments?
Yeah, that little ol' 'green' ranch may save a coupla hundred gallons of fuel and it only takes thousands of gallons to get there. Isn't that convenient? I'm sooooooo impressed
One minor fact- Bush has several homes and properties....That little 4,000 s.f. shack is not his only home. What about the 98,000 acres in S. America?
Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.
Much like cows (more...), bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon gas. Cows pose the same problem.
-------------------------------------------------
Now here is the real problem. Looks like fodder for a new movie. I would hate to be the one to have to sniff out the culprits! LOL
So what? Are you really suggesting that an animal that has had it's habitat shrunk over the last 100 years is responsible for the hottest years on record being in the last 20 years? The vast majority of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere are not by humans (trees burning, plants rotting, animals eating and then releasing carbon from plants, etc), and only about 3% are from burning fossil fuels... According to a Rush Limbaugh type that would be proof that it is a myth. Except of course that it means an additional 3% from the natural balance every year (because the plants that burn and rot took the CO2 out of the atmosphere before they returned it)that keeps accumulating. Remember, 92% of our $9 TRILLION national debt was built on spending just 2-4% more than we earned over a 27 year period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyhelena
One minor fact- Bush has several homes and properties....That little 4,000 s.f. shack is not his only home. What about the 98,000 acres in S. America?
meaning that Bush's flight back to Washington to sign the wonderful Terry Schiavo bill (just to make a show of it, he could have signed it in Crawford) burned about 15,000 gallons of fuel for air-force one, plus the gas for all the jets in the fighter escort, plus another 15,000 gallons for the "decoy" 747... I think that one trip alone works out to more fuel than the "Gore Ranch" has used since the day it was built.
meaning that Bush's flight back to Washington to sign the wonderful Terry Schiavo bill (just to make a show of it, he could have signed it in Crawford) burned about 15,000 gallons of fuel for air-force one, plus the gas for all the jets in the fighter escort, plus another 15,000 gallons for the "decoy" 747... I think that one trip alone works out to more fuel than the "Gore Ranch" has used since the day it was built. [end quote]
________________________
That is a disgrace. What about all the oil tankers (not to mention wells) named after him, his dynasty, and even Condi Rice?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The vast majority of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere are not by humans (trees burning, plants rotting, animals eating and then releasing carbon from plants, etc), and only about 3% are from burning fossil fuels... According to a Rush Limbaugh type that would be proof that it is a myth. Except of course that it means an additional 3% from the natural balance every year (because the plants that burn and rot took the CO2 out of the atmosphere before they returned it)that keeps accumulating. Remember, 92% of our $9 TRILLION national debt was built on spending just 2-4% more than we earned over a 27 year period.
