AL Gore is all that is wrong with the Democrat Party.

[NDMANLAW1]

Sean Hannity discussion board and he had a global warming study scientist on there who said that. Maybe these people made it up by a highly doubt a scientist would make that up.

 

[Shark Attack]

More specifically http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/...1&col3_box=1&col4_box=1&col5_box=1&col6_box=1

before you start attacking this as liberal bias or some crap, it's not funded by some liberal power but by Pew Research Center, which is a right-of-center thinktank in DC

 

[NDMANLAW1]

I am quite surprised by these numbers, but still it was only 32%. Yes it was the highest, but its not like it had no competition. All the others were within 10% or less but thats great to know that atleast all the networks are reporting atleast 20% truth. *sarcasm*

 

[Shark Attack]

Sean Hannity discussion board and he had a global warming study scientist on there who said that. Maybe these people made it up by a highly doubt a scientist would make that up.

Hahaha, ok, first of all, you're calling CNN biased when you're getting your information from Sean Hannity.

Second of all, "scientists" aren't some elite class structure of society. There are hacks, there are people who feel they can condemn other things based on a very limited view of evidence. Intelligent Design has scientists. Harvard's professor of psychology Howard Gardner called the W. Bush administration science advisor a "prostitute".

This is why science isn't concrete, it's revisable so that a wrong theory, even a widely accepted wrong theory, will break down over time, like the steady state theory, the model of the Atom, etc etc. Science articles are peer reviewed and independently confirmed or denied, and those reviews are reviewed and it's a very thorough overall process. For instance, EVOLUTION started out WIDELY hated as a theory, it went against Christianity and science as they knew it back then, but guess what, Other people did studies on it and gradually it became accepted.

At first, people scoffed at global warming, but people looked at the facts, ran their own numbers, and found out that over the last few hundred years, there has been a change in the fluctuation of global temperatures shortly after the inception of the coal-burning train, and has increased gradually, increasing even more with cars, to an almost exponential growth.

It's not like this is some vague theory, this is looking at the average global temperature for the last few hundred, then looking at the timeline of fossil fuels, and saying hey, these two things look kind of related.

 

[Shark Attack]

Look at global warming this way: if it's not true but we cut down on carbon dioxide emissions, we just cut down on pollution and maybe smog around LA and other cities will be reduced, we breathe cleaner air, and we're all healthier.

If it's not true and we don't, big deal, things go on as they do.

If it's true and we do, things get better and we've avoided something very nasty.

If it's true and we don't, then things get bad.

Like Pascal's Wager, it makes more sense to cut down on emissions regardless of whether or not Global Warming is true or not.

The real problem is that we take away markets from Big Oil and Big Coal.

 

[NDMANLAW1]

I completely understand what your saying. I can't wait for global warming so i can stop shuvling all this snow( live on great lakes ). I am not going to change the way i feel on this. Global Warming may be real but it is natural. 2000 years ago, Romans could grow grapes in Britain. The English cant grow them any more because it is to cold. Im just saying I think Global Warming if there is such thing is natural and we are doing nothing to cause it.

 

[NDMANLAW1]

Just think of it this Way( i am doing best i can making this): ice age went into a period of good normal temperatures. then those tempuratures rose from about the year 0 until about the year 1300 when they started to cool again. this was call the medieval warming period. then it got cold again, so cold that glaciers started expanding, crops in Europe were hard to grow, the viking settlers on Greenland could no longer survive. Now it is getting warmer again. My point is the Earth goes through cycles

 

[Shark Attack]

Ok, read up on global warming. Even if it's a natural cycle, we're now at a stage in human history where we can have a serious impact on the world. Remember the hole in the Ozone layer? we could never have done that before, but now we can.

A cool kind of parallel to draw to this is Mars and Venus. They're both earth-sized, rock planets near the sun. However, Mars has no atmosphere and is really cold, earth has some and is pretty good, and venus has a lot and is really hot. Most of venus' atmosphere is.... that's right! CO2, carbon dioxide. There's been a huge buildup from the myriad of active volcanos on the planet to the point that it's so hot on the surface that when the USSR landed a lead probe on the surface, it melted completely in something like 2 hours.

The principle of CO2 capturing heat inside a system isn't abstract and can be seen done in practice, you could probably set up an experiment involving two terrariums if you were so inclined. When we're at this point when we have a large scale impact on the worlds cycles, we have to wonder whether or not we're contributing at all to the cycle of global heating and cooling. Global cooling could be said to have contributed to the fall of the roman empire, it happens too. The point is that yeah, that cycle occurs, but it's never occured with humans at this stage in our development when we're pumping tons of this gas that we've seen can trap heat into the atmosphere. No one expects earth to be a constant temperature, but if you think that there's now an added unknown factor that hasn't been there before, do you think that it'll have any impact on the system?

 

[NDMANLAW1]

Ok, read up on global warming. Even if it's a natural cycle, we're now at a stage in human history where we can have a serious impact on the world. Remember the hole in the Ozone layer? we could never have done that before, but now we can.

QUOTE]

Just so you know its not proven but a theory is that the volcanoes are the cause of the hole in the ozone layer. I am not saying i support this theory. I am just showing other sides to the arguement. I have to go but i would love to continue this thread later.

 

[Shark Attack]

Ok, it's been good talking to you.

I don't know, but I think that the reduction of CFCs in addition to the expansion of the ozone layer might lend more weight to that theory, over the volcano theory, haha.

In all seriousness, I reiterate that science and scientific theory aren't intrinsically valid. I could say that I have a theory that, i dunno, that the synchronous rotation of the moon around the earth and the moon around it's axis actually hides a giant space-spider that lives in the area that we can't see because of the moon, and it's eggs are all over the dark side of the moon. Doesn't mean it's scientific, doesn't mean it's valid.

Theories become valid and accepted through an extensive peer review process where many independent experiments are conducted to confirm the findings, and the original experiment is duplicated to find the same results.

Noting that the Ozone hole has decreased and that volcanoes have not, this theory may not be sound.

 

[notredomer23]

not related to this thread except for this next thing-----"100th reply to this thread"-----
o yeah and shark attack and ndmanlaw1 you guys made good posts

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Look at global warming this way: if it's not true but we cut down on carbon dioxide emissions, we just cut down on pollution and maybe smog around LA and other cities will be reduced, we breathe cleaner air, and we're all healthier.

If it's not true and we don't, big deal, things go on as they do.

If it's true and we do, things get better and we've avoided something very nasty.

If it's true and we don't, then things get bad.

Like Pascal's Wager, it makes more sense to cut down on emissions regardless of whether or not Global Warming is true or not.

The real problem is that we take away markets from Big Oil and Big Coal.

Sounds good if the rest of the world thought like the U.S. Unfortunately, over the millennia, the planet has warmed & cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly unrelated to SUVs Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fuled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. BTW, China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.

Global warming is happening, but only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. That activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being - better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing ecomonic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's (not just the United States') climate?

Every person who debates this issue can dig up numerous "links" to support their argument. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the 2 sides of debate. One side will not convince the other that they are correct. This is also the case w/ other hot-button issues: gun control, abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, immigration, etc.

You make a good point w/ Pascal's Wager, but I'm sure you'll agree that it applies well to most arguments. For instance: If what Christians believe is untrue, they are a bunch of loons beholden to a fairy tale, but what if it is true?

 

[ShivaIrish]

Every person who debates this issue can dig up numerous "links" to support their argument. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the 2 sides of debate. One side will not convince the other that they are correct. This is also the case w/ other hot-button issues: gun control, abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, immigration, etc.

Part of the reason is because the way the debates for these hot button issues are constructed, it tries to leave room for only two stances, i.e. you're either for or against something. I wonder how much of that simply reflects a two-part system of governement.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Part of the reason is because the way the debates for these hot button issues are constructed, it tries to leave room for only two stances, i.e. you're either for or against something. I wonder how much of that simply reflects a two-part system of governement.

I don't know about that. I think the room between the 2 stances is where the comprimises are reached or at least offered. For instance, you have pols in favor of banning partial-birth abortions but stick to being pro-choice. Or the recent waiting period with background checks for gun buyers. But there's probably something to your last statement in that each side of the debates are backed by powerful lobbies which may lead to the absence of a 3rd POV or said comprimise.

 

[Shark Attack]

I agree that it's not that the US can just do this alone, but guess what, the US is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the world and We're doing absolutely nothing.

The Kyoto Protocol? We're the only industrialized country that has signed onto that that has STILL not done anything about it.

Yeah, it's global issue and requires a global resolution, but that doesn't mean that it's too big of a problem to handle. It's not a question so much as slowing economic development as it is switching the methods of getting power. Yeah, I'm sure some cleaner fuel sources would be less profitable, but should we keep the oil companies best interests in mind when we take a look at the global environment?

As to Pascal's Wager, it originally was applied to christians and believing in God, saying that basically, if you didn't believe in God and there was, the rewards in life were finite and negligible, and the punishments were infinite, and the reverse was true if you believed in God and there was - the punishments were finite and the rewards were infinite. However, this assumes a heck of a lot about any God, saying that you're rewarded just for belief, and that you're believing in the right God. For instance, what happens then if you lived a good life and believed in the judeo-christian God, and in fact when you died, you went and had a nice conversation with Buddah instead or something.

Removing religion from the equation, Pascal's Wager is excellent when applied to issues of whether or not we should do something - what are the rewards of all options compared to the negatives? Getting involved in an international resolution to cut down on emissions while switching over to alternative fuel sources IE electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, renewable resources like wind- water- and geothermal-power. Or even just better milage on cars, how about that? In Europe, cars are around 40 MPG, while we're stuck around 25 or so. Who's going to complain about spending less money on gas, honestly? When we switch to alternative fuel sources we're also reducing our dependence on foreign oil as well, also not a bad thing. There's real-world, here-and-now results for taking these actions, not just some esoteric promise of a better tomorrow.

 

[Shark Attack]

If we take out big oil and big coal, yeah there will be jobs lost, but there will be jobs created as well, perhaps not with such a fast-track to multi-millionaire status, but jobs working in hydro-electric plants, solar power installation, wind farms, geothermal power setup for homes and whatnot, if we reinvest interest in nuclear power, you have a plethora of potential jobs there not to mention the boom in the R&D sector, placing an emphasis on math and science in schools would feed this huge sector and would help slow, stop, or even reverse the current trend of US students falling away from science related careers.

As a result there'd be more jobs in the field of science education at all levels, and this would feed into a growth in other sectors as well, creating more jobs.

American cars are having serious trouble competing with Japanese cars and other European cars. If they switched to producing electric cars and invested in creating the infrastructure needed, they would have a significant upper hand. If you haven't seen "Who Killed the Electric Car" it's a very interesting and informative movie, just take the things they say with a grain of salt. It dispels the myth of Electric cars not have good milage, being slow, etc.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Why do people start off their posts with "I'm not a democrat"? Well, probably because you've made "democrat" and "liberal" dirty words, things to be avoided, rather than promoters of humanitarianism and equal rights, basic things that were foundations for things like the declaration of independence.

People also point fingers at liberalism as soft on foreign policy or war or some crap like that, but keep in mind that it was a liberal that in WWI defeated Germany, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire. It was again a Liberal defeated Nazi Germany, facist Italy, AND Japan, not only that, but occupied all three without an insurgency or resistance force arising, and he did all of this from a wheelchair. Not only did FDR save America from the face of facism and right-wing totalitarians but also from the Great Depression, building a strong economy and established the US as a dominant military and economic force in the world. Keep in mind that during the cold war, the Stalinism adopted by the USSR was very much a right wing ideal, similar to Mussolini, Hitler, and Pinochet, only without capitalism as an economic force, whereas McCarthyist republicans try to paint a picture of Democrats as "liberal commie pinkos". Ever since Teddy Roosevelt, you'd be hard pressed to find a Republican President who definitively won a war. FDR's successor, Truman, with international help won the Korean war. Then Eisenhower got us involved in Vietnam and Nixon was forced to admit political defeat and withdraw after almost 20 years of war. Bush I won the first gulf war with international help. Clinton as well used international help to resolve situations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Then Bush II starts gulf war II without international help with no end in sight and any likely resolution turning out bad for the US and worse for the middle east.

I think you're confusing Democrat & Liberal. They aren't one in the same. I don't believe Democrat is a "dirty word" & not all Dems are liberal (Blue dog democrats for instance?). You are correct about the label "Liberal" being a dirty word. IMO, that came to fruition during the '88 Presidential campaign. Geo. HW Bush & co. did a good job of making "liberal" the equivalent of "tax-&-spend, weak on defense and weak on crime wus". And Dukakis was the first poster boy.

I wouldn't qualify FDR & Truman (especially Truman) as liberals as defined today. FDR was faced w/ the Great Depression & then WWII, so his choices were limited as to how he dealt w/ each (that would make any Pres. seem Liberal by today's standard). He definitely iniated some programs that, today, are thrown into the liberal stereotype, but a lot of those programs were, allegedly, supposed to be temporary until folks were back on their feet. He was savvy enough to realize that this would be a vote-getter for his party for years to come, so credit his political wherewithall for that. I also give FDR & HST credit for letting our great Generals direct the War. Truman was a little more hands on, but gave the military enough space to avoid micromanaging. It didn't work out so well in Korea where HST & MacArthur butted heads. And I wouldn't label the Korean War as a definitive victory.

You're right about Eisenhower beginning the Vietnam conflict w/ sending troops there to train & provide aid and yes, Nixon was left to end the war, but you conveniently left out the person who truly made it unwinnable...Lyndon Baines Johnson. A man said to be so crooked that, upon death, they had to break his legs to fit his body in his coffin!

Ike did a good job of counseling w/ JFK when leaving the White House to him in '61. JFK increased the effort but it got ridiculous when LBJ stepped in. He micromanaged that thing to complete failure. He even insisted on choosing when & where to bomb &/or attack. He's a bureaucrat, not a military expert. Nixon got elected in '68 (after LBJ threw his hands up in the air as he threw in the towel for re-election on National TV) partially b/c he assured America that Vietnam would be brought to a conclusion. Think of Nixon as being in the same boat that the Democratic nominee will be in '08. He or she will run on a promise to "immediately" end the war in Iraq. If he or she happens to get elected, he or she will realize, PDQ, that it's not a matter of just bringing all the troops home on the first plane out of Baghdad. That was what Nixon was faced with early in his term. He realized that LBJ & McNamara had gotten the US into a deeper abyss than originally thought. He basically cleaned up the mess ASAP while living up to the commitments made by McNamara to the Vietmanese & our military & then his commitment to the American people of ending the war. The benefit that our next Pres. will have is that this war has been fought w/ the press there at almost every step. So, there shouldn't be as many suprises for who ever takes over. But, you can be sure the next Pres. will come up some unexpected suprises that he/she weren't aware of in order to make an excuse for not ending it overnight.

IMO, Clinton didn't exactly resolve the situations in Bosnia & Kosovo. The success of those operations are still up for debate. After all, the one thing Clinton thought would hurt his legacy was the fact that he wouldn't be remembered as a "War President". Somalia was nothing to pat himself on the back about either...that was ugly! I wouldn't count on any wars in the future on the scale of WWI & WWII, so when measured vs. those, I'm hardpressed to find any definitive victories by Presidents since WWII from either party.

That's why I prefer to compare politicians as liberal, moderate or conservative regardless of their party affiliation. IMO, Eisenhower, Ford & Bush Sr were moderates. Reagan a classic conservative, Bush Jr a neoCon, Guiliani a social liberal/fiscal conservative. JFK was pretty conservative by today's Dem standards. After all, his across the board tax cuts were of the same spirit as Reagan's & Bush Jr's. All 3 were the largest ever enacted & led to very successful economies. I think Reagan's quote summed up this part of the discussion best when he was asked about leaving the Democratic Party. He said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party...the Democratic Party left me".

Sorry for the rambling...but that's my 2 cents.

 

[Shark Attack]

Haha, very well put IRISHDODGER. I remember Zell Miller quoting that a few years back at the RNC.

I don't really have too much to add (for once!), i think that LBJ made a better senator than President, I wonder what happened to the "small government" politics of old went off to, and that while it's good to look at politicians as a case by case basis and label them by their ideology, more and more we're seeing straight party-line voting (a testament to the job of the Majority/Minority whips!).

Also - I'm mixing "democrats" and "liberals" because ever since, as you said, the '88 Bush campaign, "liberal" has been a horrible word used on Dukakis, "Massachusetts Liberal" on Kerry, and i've even heard some people try to wrongfully label Clinton as a liberal, to the point where it's word association Republican-conservative Democrat-liberal (you can do this too with Republican-foriegn policy Democrat-domestic policy, on and on, all the way to emotions), and so that if someone started out a post saying "I'm a Democrat", the immediate off-the-cuff reaction would be to associate them as a whiney weak on defense liberal, even if they may be fairly conservative like Harry Reid, the Dems Senate Majority Leader, or war-hawks or Zell Miller dixiecrat style politician. The stereotype exists, and even if some things such as fiscal responsibility may be reversed recently, and others have been eradicated, long standing images still stand, and it's not exactly the best thing in the world to get flamed on a football board for being a 'lefty', or for clarifying you're not.

 

[tommy]

They had a good story in the US news about the worst presidents
from bad to worse Zachary Taylor,Richard Nixon,Herbert Hoover,William Harrison,Ulysses S Grant,John Tyler,Millard Filmore,Franklin Pierce,Andrew Johnson,Warren G Harding, James Buchanan

 

[lattedatte]

They had a good story in the US news about the worst presidents
from bad to worse Zachary Taylor,Richard Nixon,Herbert Hoover,William Harrison,Ulysses S Grant,John Tyler,Millard Filmore,Franklin Pierce,Andrew Johnson,Warren G Harding, James Buchanan

Interesting.

no jimmy carter??

Would like to know who they considered the best.

 

[lattedatte]

In Europe, cars are around 40 MPG, while we're stuck around 25 or so. Who's going to complain about spending less money on gas, honestly? When we switch to alternative fuel sources we're also reducing our dependence on foreign oil as well, also not a bad thing. There's real-world, here-and-now results for taking these actions, not just some esoteric promise of a better tomorrow.

I would also like for us to get start building roundabouts in all new construction. That would save millions of gallons of gas. Something as simple as that.

But I'm not in favor of taxing gas the way the do which is the real reason they are driving around boxes on wheels over there.

BTW, Pascal's wager actually is a good application when thinking about global warming. I'm all for doing whatever it takes to address this issue.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

If we take out big oil and big coal, yeah there will be jobs lost, but there will be jobs created as well, perhaps not with such a fast-track to multi-millionaire status, but jobs working in hydro-electric plants, solar power installation, wind farms, geothermal power setup for homes and whatnot, if we reinvest interest in nuclear power, you have a plethora of potential jobs there not to mention the boom in the R&D sector, placing an emphasis on math and science in schools would feed this huge sector and would help slow, stop, or even reverse the current trend of US students falling away from science related careers.

As a result there'd be more jobs in the field of science education at all levels, and this would feed into a growth in other sectors as well, creating more jobs.

American cars are having serious trouble competing with Japanese cars and other European cars. If they switched to producing electric cars and invested in creating the infrastructure needed, they would have a significant upper hand. If you haven't seen "Who Killed the Electric Car" it's a very interesting and informative movie, just take the things they say with a grain of salt. It dispels the myth of Electric cars not have good milage, being slow, etc.

Both China & India are not Kyoto signers which is a bigger blow to the environment than anything the U.S. can do. China has finally signed on to capitalism when it comes to fiscal policy, so more of their population will be toodling around in cars that are not regulated in regards to emissions. My point about the loss in productivity wasn't really aimed toward Big Oil, but towards the overall working population. The constraints would affect everything & everyone which means new advances in how we travel, or produce goods & services would be rolled back to abide by enviro-Nazis new regs. But regarding the environmental talking heads, they could improve their sincerity by choosing to fly commercial instead of jumping on a private jet to travel across country. And most, if not all, have been called on the carpet regarding this hypocrisy. Arriana Huffington, Al Gore & Bobby Kennedy, Jr. Their flimsy excuses just don't fly & it comes off as arrogance & elitism that they are too important to fly w/ us common folk & instead take a private jet to further flood the atmosphere w/ jet fuel. No excuses.

I do agree w/ your idea about reinvesting in nuclear energy. The word "nuclear" scares the hell out of people, but when handled in the proper way, it's a very clean & powerful source of energy. And your point about the trickle down it would have on education and R&D makes sense, but until America catches up w/ Japan, India & middle East regarding those areas of expertise, they will continue to come to America to fill those needs over our own less qualified citizens. Hopefully, the Dems & Reps will come together to fix the schools (pie in the sky!). I like what Gov. Bloomberg (a liberal Repuplican, BTW!) is doing w/ his education czar who happens to be a Dem. He goes in & gives ea. principal the power to do what they need to ensure their teachers are doing their job. If they don't, however; he fires their ass. It's pretty interesting & a nice alternative to the bickering between both parties. Now if we could get our kids to quit eating super sized fast food & getting some exercise to avoid the atrocious obesity rates, we'll really be making strides. Think of the health care costs saved. It's pretty sad that a person can eat themselves into a state of obesity that they get Type 2 diabetes & other illnesses until they're on disability w/ a handicap license plate. All out of a lack of self control which usually stems from portion control. That's another topic however. Nice talking to you.

P.S.You're right, LBJ was a lot better Senator than Pres.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

I would also like for us to get start building roundabouts in all new construction. That would save millions of gallons of gas. Something as simple as that.

But I'm not in favor of taxing gas the way the do which is the real reason they are driving around boxes on wheels over there.

BTW, Pascal's wager actually is a good application when thinking about global warming. I'm all for doing whatever it takes to address this issue.

Roundabouts sound good on paper, until our beloved elderly get on the roads & it the roundabouts totally blow their mind. Talk about chaos & my insurance rates are high enough as it is!

 

[big daddy]

Quick question - Did cave man activity lead to " Global Warming" thus ending The Ice Age?

 

[lattedatte]

Roundabouts sound good on paper, until our beloved elderly get on the roads & it the roundabouts totally blow their mind. Talk about chaos & my insurance rates are high enough as it is!

and chevy chase, look kids big ben, parliament...

 

[IRISHDODGER]

and chevy chase, look kids big ben, parliament...

Well done...good stuff.:awesomewo

 

[The Fly]

I would also like for us to get start building roundabouts in all new construction. That would save millions of gallons of gas. Something as simple as that.

New Jersey loves traffic circles. They're all over the place.

I'm all for doing whatever it takes to address this issue.

That's kind of a scary statement. Willing to park your car? Turn off your lights? Turn off your heat?And hold your breath (your currently emitting CO2)? I'm all for taking unbiased look at man's causes toward global warming. I'm not nearly ready to accept the UN report as gospel. This is one issue where dissenters have been muffled.

 

[lattedatte]

New Jersey loves traffic circles. They're all over the place.



That's kind of a scary statement. Willing to park your car? Turn off your lights? Turn off your heat?And hold your breath (your currently emitting CO2)? I'm all for taking unbiased look at man's causes toward global warming. I'm not nearly ready to accept the UN report as gospel. This is one issue where dissenters have been muffled.

Thank you Mr literal.

 

[Shark Attack]

Quick question - Did cave man activity lead to " Global Warming" thus ending The Ice Age?

Will this thread have any affect on policy?

 

[portlaNDgal]

That's kind of a scary statement. Willing to park your car? Turn off your lights? Turn off your heat?And hold your breath (your currently emitting CO2)? I'm all for taking unbiased look at man's causes toward global warming. I'm not nearly ready to accept the UN report as gospel. This is one issue where dissenters have been muffled.

We could be like my coworker, featured in this article:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sustainable/story.php?story_id=116553813956384100

OK, I don't do everything he does either...