The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

[OldMercsRule]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

[colour=blue]The only group that makes big money from seeing this theory debunked, exxon et al.

Can you answer my questions?

Hey Dunaruna, The others did real well, but let me take a crack at your challenge. Why would you say: "the only group that makes big money from seeing this theory debunked Exxon et al"

Exxon, (or British Petroleum) supplies energy. If the US economy booms more energy is consumed if the economy drops less energy is consumed. If another type of energy can be found that would have greater availability at a cheaper price with less side effects I assure you Exxon as one of the very best managed energy enterprizes on this planet would be the first to exploit such an opportunity. They would be fighting to beat RD Shell and BP to exploit the situation!

If Algore and all the Liberals have their way #1 The US economy would be servely hampered by the Kyoto Protocol yet the Chinese, (who gave ol' Al lots of illegal contrabutions BTW), and India would be allowed free reign. Bill Clinton knew Al was insane and he never ratified the treaty n' kicked the can to George Bush so the Libs could tee off on Bush which they have. #2 If the US economy declined (as it surly would) Exxon would suffer, (but as one of the world's most profitable and solvent corporations, I would not get out my violin)! I would lament at the plight the rest of us poor pawns would be in though. Bottom line: pass Kyoto Protocol USA has a depression, and so would the rest of the world.

A better question: Who profits from scaring lemmings into acting on half baked bovine feces global warming theories trumped up by Hollywierd n' the MSM? The answer is clear. #1 China and India #2 The Democratic party gains power to raise taxes and further regulate and interfere, (more Government employees, who join Unions n' vote for more Democrats). Who loses? Most Americans (in the private non government sector). Ol' Murky is thrown in jail for refusing to destroy an inline six Merc n' drivin' his SUV!

I hope this sorted it out. Respectfully JR

 

[Boomyal]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

[colour=blue]- the potential scope of this theory demands this debate because if we get it wrong -

Debate is ok. There are plenty of circumstance surrounding this issue to debate about. However when the subject is picked up by a party that is notorious for trying to make it's mark by using that issue, everyone should run for the hills.

Even more so, when a defeated, disgruntled, megalomaniac tries to create a legacy and restore himself to power....well, you get the point.

Unlike the great moderate JB, I disagree that the answer 'lies somewhere in between'. There is either global warming, caused by man, or there is not.

As for Carl Sagan, any respect I ever had for his opinions went out the window when he stated that we should not engage in Gulf War I because Saddam would light the Kuwati oil fields on fire and that would be the end of the world.

Carl Sagan was also an avowed Leftist.

 

[roscoe]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Who makes money off of global warming hype?

Chemical companies pushing alternative fuels, whether they are alternatives or not. (Archer Daniels Midland)
Activists.
Activist non profit organizations.
Employees of the activist non profit organizations.
Fertilizer companies.
Trucking companies.
Wind and solar energy equipment companies.
Lawyers.
Lobbyists.
Authors. (Al Gore and others)
Scientists, who are paid by private foundations (with agendas) or with government funds (won by the lobbyists)

Who pays for all this? The consumer and the taxpayer (me).

What else is taken from me?
Freedom to purchase what works best for me.
My money, as the "alternatives" always cost more.
My lifestyle and standard of living are eroded.

How does this translate into a political issue, you ask?
Simple, conservatives, true conservatives, wish to preserve your freedoms and strive for less government intrusion. While liberals wish to invade every crevasse of my existence, and love any issue that will give them more power to control the people and pursestrings of the country.

 

[crunch]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

While liberals wish to invade every crevasse of my existence,

And aren't even polite enough to supply their own Vaseline.

Well said Rosco....

 

[12Footer]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Carl Sagan said it best:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion..

Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves.

And Aldo, as boatbouy's post illustrates, many people, having abandoned any belief in God, have a spiritual void in in need filling with another type of "religion". This issue (Global warmin) , for some, has become their religion, or "faith", and Carl , or Gore as their "messiah".

In the absence of Jesus, Ala, or Budah, Carl Sagan or Algore can fill the void quite completely for some. After all, the followers are all only human.

It's only when their crusade or purges begin, or revival tents are errected , or the "faithful" fly hijacked aircraft into buildings, or kamakazi into ships at sea, that the "infidels" get angry with the "faithfull" -- or their "faith".
But only because of what it requires of the "infidel" to appease the believers.. Full submission to their God!

If people just worshipped their sungods and left everyone else alone, the world would be a much better place, and we would not have these endless "crusades".
.

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Even if the rapid rate of Global Warming is all natural(which I highly doubt....its happening too fast), we still need to slow or stop it as best we can. The survival and progression of our species probably depends on it. We thrive in the environment we live in now and global warming will change all that regardless of who is causing it.

Trying to slow or stop global warming isn't much different than us building a levee or a dam.......it is manipulation of our environment for the benefit of man. Global warming falls under this same category. Whether we caused it or not, it needs to be greatly slowed down or stopped......for the benefit of every person on this earth.

 

[12Footer]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Mr scott, whether you are right, wrong, or just concerened, you should read this. It is the opening chapters of Jurassic Park as written by Michael Crichton.
That's right... Media sources quoted by 12footer --- STOP THE PRESSES! And an intersting sidenote: This was illiminated in the film.. I cannot imagine why.

" You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity! Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.


It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

If ya want to stop global warming in it's tracks, quit breathing out.

 

[12Footer]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Tell it to the dinosaurs.. Oh wait.. they're in my gas tank.-- sorry.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Who makes money off of global warming hype?

Chemical companies pushing alternative fuels, whether they are alternatives or not. (Archer Daniels Midland)
Activists.
Activist non profit organizations.
Employees of the activist non profit organizations.
Fertilizer companies.
Trucking companies.
Wind and solar energy equipment companies.
Lawyers.
Lobbyists.
Authors. (Al Gore and others)
Scientists, who are paid by private foundations (with agendas) or with government funds (won by the lobbyists)

Who pays for all this? The consumer and the taxpayer (me).

What else is taken from me?
Freedom to purchase what works best for me.
My money, as the "alternatives" always cost more.
My lifestyle and standard of living are eroded.

How does this translate into a political issue, you ask?
Simple, conservatives, true conservatives, wish to preserve your freedoms and strive for less government intrusion. While liberals wish to invade every crevasse of my existence, and love any issue that will give them more power to control the people and pursestrings of the country.

Very Good Roscoe!8)8)8)JR

 

[QC]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

I thought Roscoe's post was very good as well. Except he forgot to put QC on his list . . . The product I pedal (edit: wrong peddle, but it kinda works) and have lived and breathed for the last 10 years is a diesel cycle truck engine that runs on 80% Natural Gas. It is the lowest heavy-duty emitter of so called Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) available on the market anywhere.

GHG hype is starting to drive our business a little, although our primary focus is on the economic benefits of natural gas. Unlike the majority of Alternate fuels that Roscoe noted, natural gas is almost always less expensive than petroleum fuels btu for btu (which is the correct way to compare them i.e. energy content per $). Businesses will only respond on a large scale to economics. We get some demonstration projects for feel good stuff, but the biggest orders we have received are driven by legislation or economics. I hate legislated business though as our customers are almost angry at us for being forced to use an inferior fuel. Natural gas is good stuff, but it is much harder to use than diesel. The biggest difference is that you can pour diesel into a bucket and it will stay there . . .

 

[treedancer]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Quote 12 footer

Mr scott, whether you are right, wrong, or just concerened, you should read this. It is the opening chapters of Jurassic Park as written by Michael Crichton.

Wow that sure puts some validity in the thread, quoting a fictional movie that was based on a fictional book.8)

 

[12Footer]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Quote 12 footer

Mr scott, whether you are right, wrong, or just concerened, you should read this. It is the opening chapters of Jurassic Park as written by Michael Crichton.

Wow that sure puts some validity in the thread, quoting a fictional movie that was based on a fictional book.8)

Crichton did NOT write "inconveinent truth".. Algore did.

But I realise that algore is by far, the only messiah when it comes to this neopaganism, and I have trouble with his preaching to begin with. Gore is a hypocrite, that talks the talk, but does not walk the walk. At bare minimum, his practicing what he doth preach is a prequisite before people with half a brain should begin to trust his gospel enough to follow him into the abyss of third worldism.

 

[Dunaruna]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

[colour=blue]

Earth has survived everything in its time............

True, but it's not earth I'm concerned with, it's us. The dinosaurs wern't smart enough to avoid extinction, they probably didn't even have a discussion about it.

And please, how did God get into this?

 

[technostingray]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

The left attacks the administration, saying that "they" (whoever the heck that is) don't care about our planet, they only want big profits for the rich oil guys and the industrialists.

.

I believe Rich oil guys and the industrialists would be the antecedant of "they"

 

[QC]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Aldo,

I understand the religion references as I do believe all peoples need to believe, or follow, something. I am convinced that to many their religion is health for example. They "worship" their bodies, they treat it with respect, they only eat the "healthiest" foods, they even have leaders etc.

I believe there are others who hold a similar regard for the "Environment". The passion that they hold in pursuing fixes or changes that protect the environment are easily as strong as those that drive an evangelical Christian for example. They have "faith" that the Earth is their Mother and that saving her is their personal responsibility.

What is interesting to me about this type of fanaticism is that lying to achieve an objective is OK. I posted a thread about the exaggeration of the deaths from Chernobyl that continue today. Maybe reporting that it is estimated there will be 100,000 deaths is only speculation, but continuing to report that there were 100,000 deaths today would in my book be a lie. However, those that worship the environment know what's best for you, so it doesn't matter. Similarly some take up anti-smoking as their personal Crusade, which leads to lies about the real threat from second-hand smoke, and they even preach about a devil . . . Big Tobacco. Sound familiar?

I am not swayed by good intentions. I am concerned with results and behavior. The reason I usually chime in when the relevance or goodness of religion is questioned, is that unlike the religions of Health and the Environment, traditional "religions" are primarily dedicated to behavior towards one another. And usually that behavior is understood to be "good" as opposed to "evil" behavior that some take up in the name of religion.

Again, I am concerned with behavior towards others, so I have a problem when religion is maligned while Environmental fanaticism is defended. Not saying that is the case with your question, just explaining why I usually crank up the keyboard on this topic . . .

Oh, and once again, I need to clarify: I don't regularly go to church, I am agnostic on an "all Knowing" God, however, I do believe rather strongly in Creation in some form. Not a 5000 year old earth deal for sure, but another one of my sigs needs to be "Evolution was Created . . . Next issue?"

 

[12Footer]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

True, but it's not earth I'm concerned with, it's us. The dinosaurs wern't smart enough to avoid extinction, they probably didn't even have a discussion about it.

I am glad about that. If they did have a discussion, they may have decided not to power my Dodge Ram.

And please, how did God get into this?

I was hoping someone would axe that question. Liberals have given-up any belief in Jesus. Given that fact, the adoption of paganism as a form of faith, and you have neopaganism.
The Earth Mother (their god), coupled with the psuedo-religion of global warming, acording to the gospel of algore (their new messiah), and the New yourk Times (their church's pulpit),
And you find that in God's absence, human beings will gravite toward anything they see as a higher power.
Don't get me wrong -- We should stay out of their way, and allow them to worship their sungod's in freedom and peace.. Until they insist the masses travel to werk on a bicycle, or change-out all the light bulbs in OUR homes to mercury-layden coiled flourescents.

I was a real "doom and gloom liberal in the 70's"! The genuine article... I was a real pagan as a youth brought-up in a Catholic family.
That was many moons ago, but it occured. Now, as a Christian, I demand everyone's tollernce and little else. THEIR faith, on the other hand, requires my full submission to THEIR god. All Christians ask of them, is to be allowed to worship what we consider our God, Survive, and raise our children in peaceful surroundings. I'm not saying we can't get testy when we are told how to live by others. But who's immune to that?

Islam can't have ANYONE who isn't muslim around them!
And these radical neopagans want EVERYONE to stop existing in the name of their God. These neopagans are about as tollerant as the talaban!
They insist on my coopertation...I am sorry... Not without a fight.

A "hynm" from the book of Jefferson Starship, circa 1971... I had the album!I grew up (thank God), but Do not Tell ME we had no god!

Earth Mother.
(Jack Traylor)

Chorus:
Earth mother your children are here
High and feeling dandy
Earth mother your children are here
Ripped on coke and candy

Once the earth was a garden
It gave us all we need
Then it grew so barren
All because of greed

Once the air was for breathing
And clouds caused rain to fall
Then it filled with poisons
Strangling us all

Chorus:

Water was once for drinking
And giving life to the land
Then it was used for cooling
The machinery of man

Chorus:

It's not your fault you're ill now
It's the men who went before
Your children are at your side now
Don't worry anymore

Your children are your salvation
They see your life as their own
They recognize no nation
They dance around your throne

Dancing in the meadows
To the sound of a living tree
In and out of the shadows
Laughing with the breeze

 

[roscoe]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

QC, I don't consider natural gas to be an "alternative" fuel, just a different fuel.
Because it is real, and it works, is practical, and is economically feasible in some situations.

That would not be the case if it was mandated across the country.

Why aren't we building more hydro-electric dams and nuclear plants?
The work, and are cost effective. Emit no GHG's.
Only the greenies stand in our way.

 

[QC]

Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....

Why aren't we building more hydro-electric dams and nuclear plants?
The work, and are cost effective. Emit no GHG's.
Only the greenies stand in our way.

One man's solution is another man's pollution. The greenies stand in their own way . . .

I'll give the French credit for knowing the difference and doing what they have to. In this country we actually pay attention when someone suggest we should empty Lake Powell