I can't wait till they pass cap and trade...

Then the guys on here will be deciding, "hmm, gas for the car, or beer..."...

I feel a lot of walking is in the future for many of you.

So much for "no tax increases for anyone under $250,000..."

Good thing you voted for Osama.

been busy...

Lets look at the facts. I don't have time to go through your list of sketchy "pseudo science".

FreeEnterprise wrote: Lets look at the facts. I don't have time to go through your list of sketchy "pseudo science".

Hey, I went through your pseudo-science - the least you could do is return the favor.  But I suspect you will find my science less pseudo, and my sources more reliable...

Like the US Geological Survey describing volcanic emissions - pseudo-science?

And, of course, not everything I posted was science - pseudo or otherwise - like noting that there are already several environmental cap and trade systems in place, none of which have ruined the economy.

I can see why you wouldn't want to go through that list.

Just read the book. "Red Hot Lies"...

I might - my plate is slightly full at the moment, but I do enjoy the occasional political piece.  Check back in a month or two.
 

How much money has al gore made from "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever he is calling his scam now?

Wow - talk about a compound question assuming facts not in evidence.  Impressive.  Did you stop beating your wife before or after you embezzled the company?

But I will break it down:

1.  All of the profits from "An Inconvenient Truth," both book and movie, are donated to an educational campaign.  Al Gore gets nothing.

2.  Gore does have substantial investments in "green" companies, and he will presumably benefit financially from these investments if greenery becomes more popular.  But these investments are quite recent (GIS was formed in 2004, for instance), and Gore's dedication to climate change issues goes back to the 70s.  That is a heck of a long time to lay a plan.  Since Gore has spent much of his life in political office his financials were fairly public until quite recently.  As a result there are few surprises.  The whole "this is a get-rich scheme by Al Gore" theory rests on the belief that Al Gore spent 30 years of underpaid work in the government just so he could set up his green investing company after losing the Presidential election. 

3.  Most successful politicians cash in after leaving office.  If anything, Al Gore could be making FAR more money if he had chosen just about anything else to do.  Bill Clinton is getting tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak - Al Gore is doing it for free.  If this is a profiteering scheme, it is the worst.profiteering.scheme.ever.

4.  Global warming/climate change is not "his" scheme.  Al Gore is not a scientist, and does not pretend to be.  The science exists independently of Al Gore and his movie.  Discovering incorrect statements in the movie does not affect the underlying science.

5.  And that is a key point.  There is volumes upon volumes of science behind current global warming theory.  Science put forth by scientists.  Most of the noise being made about global warming is being made by scientists - mostly the same scientists doing the science.  Yes, there are some high-profile non-scientist spokesmen (like Al Gore), and yes, there is a signficant non-scientific hippie/political movement pushing as well, but on the whole it is a science-driven movement.  

6.  ON THE OTHER HAND, the no-global-warming crowd consists mostly of politicians, industry lobbyists, and crackpots.  There are certainly some legitimate scientists with legitimate scientific questions and concerns - and those concerns are heard.  I have no beef with them or their research.  The science on global warming is not a bedrock solid as some other scientific theories, and there is plenty of work left to be done.  But those scientists are the minority, and a fairly quiet minority, of the no-warming crowd.  They are drowned out by industry hacks like Horner, who intentionally spouts what he must know to be untrue, drowned out by media hacks like Rush Limbaugh, who will say whatever is the opposite of the last thing he heard a Democrat say, and drowned out by political hacks like Inhofe, who will say whatever his biggest campaign donors tell him to.  The two do not compare.

Obama is forcing through reparations. "white mans greed runs a world in need"...   Taking from the rich and giving to the poor. When you pay for things by taxing one group differently than others by definition you are giving reparations.

That makes absolutely no sense.  Reparations for... what?

And, BTW, your definition of "reparations" is really just "taxes."  Almost by definition, virtually all taxes amount to a redistribution of wealth.



-------------

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?

Caution needs to be taken to keep advances in environmental technology out of the political muck that surrounds the debate on global warming.

Scientists are jumping into the fray alongside politicians from both political parties. Corporations have their fingers in it as well. It seems everyone has a stake in the global warming issue somehow, and one side is just as guilty as the other in bogging down environmental progression.

The issue that is global warming has become a dark pit of political squabbling.

We are in an age when any attempt to truly care or do anything about the environment is almost a sentence of declared war. Someone who talks positively about advancements in green technology now must prepare for a long, drawn out battle of words and wits.

This debate undoubtedly will end in a series of charts demonstrating a whole slew of numbers that appear to be gibberish to anyone without a Ph.D. To counter, just as impressive looking charts can be shown to somehow refute what the first one said.

The entire mess has created quite the Academy Award-wining spectacle.

How fast is the global climate changing? Is this just Earth going through a normal climate cycle, or has human life altered it? What about the polar bears?

These are all very compelling questions, but don't think these questions should change anything. It shouldn't matter what stance any political figure takes on the issue, or what side of the issue a political party speaks about.

It does not matter if someone thinks that Earth will end the day after tomorrow, or that it will last until the sun burns out.

Sustainability of natural resources by moving toward a cleaner society should be the ultimate goal. We should do what we can to improve the quality of our environment now no matter what the current theory on global warming is.

It does not matter which political party you affiliate with, or if you are conservative or liberal. You still breathe the same air either way. The issue of environmental safety should not be used as a political chess piece, as it does nothing but stifle improvement and create apathy.

Luckily, UCF is doing its best to continue working forward.

Updates that can be seen around campus include solar panels for classroom buildings and the green roof for the Student Union. A modified 2007 Toyota Prius with the ability to run completely without gasoline combustion was recently added to UCF's fleet of vehicles. It converts 70 cents worth of electrical power into the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. Simply plug it in, let it charge and watch it go.

These ideas span the spectrum from being complex; converting a motor vehicle so that it plugs into the wall, to simple; planting a garden on the roof to save in energy costs.

However, these updates all share a common goal of creating a more environmentally friendly campus.

We should try and make our campus as environmentally friendly as we possibly can despite the great debates.

That is exactly what advancements such as solar panels and green roofs do. They are not giant leaps in technology, but they are small steps in which future generations can continue to build off of.

Introducing new environmental advances around campus keeps the movement living and breathing fresh air away from political jargon. What better place to demonstrate such steps than a university filled with students in fields such as engineering, who one day may be making even further inventions.

Steady steps towards making the campus more environmentally friendly will not happen instantly.

But we should continue doing what we can right now, and try hard not to step in muck.

Friggin accidental refresh . . .

I'm not going to retype it as well as I originally did, but here it goes:

I think you misunderstood me in a few places.

I'm not accusing you of blaming the right for the current state of things, you're much fairer then I am in that respect :)

However, I do think that the general public is sliding towards that mindset, and worse I feel they are also taking the view Gore presented to heart: The sky is falling. Historically, panicking people about a threat, even a confirmed one, does nothing to help. Sadly, I think its a little too late to fix that perception.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the science is faulty, its not. We definitely know a great deal more about climate then we did 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Historically, however, whenever we think we know a lot about climate, we discover we know very little. I am saying that much much more research needs to be done on the impact of our involvement, and, more importantly, how our entire ecosystem affects climate. Until we understand how the environment works, we can't begin trying to affect climate change. Even cutting back CO2 emissions could have unforeseen results. Some scientists and historians believe that the Little Ice Age in Europe was due to the lack of Greenhouse gases after the plague (other explanations include sunspots and regional climate patterns, a prime example of how little we understand). We need to invest in understanding how each element in an ecosystem affects each other element, how each ecosystem affects another in each Biome, how each Biome affects each other in the Biosphere, and how the Biosphere and Atmosphere and Sun affect climate. We have a huge amount we have yet to learn, and much much more money needs to go into research in these areas.

My comment on Crichton was undoubtedly misreading if you haven't read the book. In the end is a chapter where Crichton effectively says what I said above, that we need to really invest in understanding the environment and the impact of climate change before we try to fix it. He certainly takes some creative license with the research, and backs up his views with papers whose conclusions say opposite of his, but he does manage to raise some valid points about policy, and highlight some misconceptions about climate science, albeit creating a few more. I would say on the whole, hes only a smidgen more misleading then AIT, but I'm not suggesting it qualifies as something to cite in a debate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml - http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml

So the "era" of transparency, actually means, "we look at facts that we like". Then ignore all others, while stifling them...

I don't bother with "debating" with you peter, as your debates are always the same. I just put out the facts that prove your opinion is so jaded that it is pretty much a religion for you. You have to believe, and anyone who speaks out against it, you claim must be a bumpkin with no intelligence. (really, find a new argument, that one is VERY stale).

Peter Parker wrote: but I find the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive.  When scientists shift their debate, I pay attention.  Scientists love nothing more than proving their colleagues wrong - when they stop trying it means that they can't.

Or it means they are being silenced... As my article that I posted clearly points out. As well as my other links that I posted, also pointing out the "blacklisting" of anyone who speaks out against the "global warming religion/ideology".

I also find funny your attacks on other groups, because you don’t like them…

Peter Parker wrote:   The real problem with CEI is the crap they spout. But the main reason you should dismiss CEI, of course, is because they spout lies.

Peter Parker wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Funding of any agenda based research from either side of the issue has credibility issues. Absolutely true, and an extra skeptical read should always be applied when the conclusions align with funders' interests. But not all interest-funded research is bad - most of it is good.  Scientists as a rule are actually looking for the truth - that's why they became research scientists. More importantly, we cannot simply lump all claims of science together as "research."  The IPCC reports are scientific research projects.  What the CEI puts out is NOT science of any kind, but pure propaganda. I will listen to scientists with a contrary view - in fact, I seek them out - regardless of their funding source.  But propaganda is just that.  It is not new knowledge, or even knowledge at all, but intentional spin. So yes, consider the source of funding, but most of all consider the nature of the information being presented.

Nice statements, too bad you don’t follow them… If you truly were interested in looking at “science” then you would have a problem with gore spouting off about the 2,500 “scientists” that signed off on his “findings”…

When they all don’t actually agree…

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537 - http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537

I copy pasted the parts of the article that were interesting.

Tripp, a member of the IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC "lead authors"

"It shows what the IPCC touts as a consensus is less than a consensus. Even within that group not everyone is in total agreement,"

He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. "It well may be, but we're not scientifically there yet."

He also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying "I don't have the expertise."

But meteorologist Thomas Reichler did just that. He was involved in a University of Utah study that the IPCC models "are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends."

Neal Briggs, who farms nearly 300 acres in Syracuse, said he's comfortable that the Farm Bureau presents only one side of the climate debate because "the science behind it isn't sound. From what I've researched, we are not a large contributor to global warming."

Facts are, IPCC is representing government funded sciences, and based on your so called “skepticism” of following the money… Seems like you would be less likely to follow their “biased” science that is now wanting to tax us at a higher rate to pay for supposed “harm” that we caused… Which hasn’t been proven…