COLD ON WARMING

[XtremeJibber2001]

Do I have evidence to prove my point, yes I do.

That gore shouldnt be talking about the environment?

Sure he should. Just not in the bias misleading way he's doing today. Similar to what Michael Moore did with Fahrenheit 9/11. Why not create a solely educational film to inform the public ... put forth different views and alternative ways of dealing with the issue?

That there is no evidence to suggest that the polar ice caps are melting at a rate faster then we originally predicted?

Sure, there is plenty of evidence. Is it undoubtedly connected to human causes? No.


That the loss of said ice caps, the increase in temps and the resulting meteorlogical phenomenon may very well cause more people to die from weather related issues then do currently.

... or it won't. Or we'll complete the cycle and return to 'normalacy'. Just because it's weather related and a death has occured does not mean it's correlated with *human caused* global warming.

Or are you simply trying to show that democrats like to mouth off about the environment while not actually doing anything to change the situation?

What is it you propose we do? Would it be worth the sacrifices, time, and money we'd all have to make ... and after all that, what improvements (if any) would we see? I just registered in PA as independent, it has nothing to do with partisan politics. I'd say the same stuff if GWB was rambling on about this topic in the same manner.

Oh and i think city was suggesting that since you are a waste of bandwith, maybe you should stop posting, not him. You seem to have gotten confused on that too.

I hardly think a person such as CS that is concerned with personal rights would suggest I cease and desist. I'm sure CS appreciates you speaking on his behalf, however.

[JerseyGuy]

Oh, here we go again. Another well-researched treatise by JibJab that cites:

1. The New York Post, a right-wing rag owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the same company the owns and runs Fox News Channel, and

2. "Junkscience.com", run by Steven J. Milroy, the "Administrative Contact" of the "Citizens for the Integrity of Science", which apparently consists of Steven Milroy, a Mr. Michael Gough, and, um... Steven's mother, perhaps? (To be fair, two people do warrant the plural form of "citizen", and that does sound EVER so much better than "Me and Mike and My Mom Against Thw World, Inc.")

Where do you FIND this crap? And why on earth does anyone on this board still treat JibJab as if he had a fully-functioning cerebral cortex when he simply trolls the internet in a desperate search for something, ANYthing that backs up whatever half-baked thoughts happen to be rolling around in his head like loose BB's?

Here's a gentle suggestion for your next post, JibJab: have a POINT in mind. It makes the time go by so much faster...

[2knees]

Do I have evidence to prove my point, yes I do.

That gore shouldnt be talking about the environment?

Sure he should. Just not in the bias misleading way he's doing today. Similar to what Michael Moore did with Fahrenheit 9/11. Why not create a solely educational film to inform the public ... put forth different views and alternative ways of dealing with the issue?

That there is no evidence to suggest that the polar ice caps are melting at a rate faster then we originally predicted?

Sure, there is plenty of evidence. Is it undoubtedly connected to human causes? No.


That the loss of said ice caps, the increase in temps and the resulting meteorlogical phenomenon may very well cause more people to die from weather related issues then do currently.

... or it won't. Or we'll complete the cycle and return to 'normalacy'. Just because it's weather related and a death has occured does not mean it's correlated with *human caused* global warming.

Or are you simply trying to show that democrats like to mouth off about the environment while not actually doing anything to change the situation?

What is it you propose we do? Would it be worth the sacrifices, time, and money we'd all have to make ... and after all that, what improvements (if any) would we see? I just registered in PA as independent, it has nothing to do with partisan politics. I'd say the same stuff if GWB was rambling on about this topic in the same manner.

Oh and i think city was suggesting that since you are a waste of bandwith, maybe you should stop posting, not him. You seem to have gotten confused on that too.

I hardly think a person such as CS that is concerned with personal rights would suggest I cease and desist. I'm sure CS appreciates you speaking on his behalf, however.

no you missed the question. i simply asked what YOUR point was. I threw a few possibilities out but i still dont know what YOUR point is. want to try again?

[XtremeJibber2001]

no you missed the question. i simply asked what YOUR point was. I threw a few possibilities out but i still dont know what YOUR point is. want to try again?

I thought it was obvious from my initial post.

Interesting. Deaths from global warming will double to 300,000 in 25 years? This stat alone is proof that Gore's new movie is purely political.

[Cityskier]

The thing about this entire issue that makes me see red is that the science of increased carbon in the atmosphere leading to heat being trapped in the atmosphere is irrefutable. What's also without question is that humans release enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and, particularly in 3rd world countries where ther are removing the fauna that removes the CO2 that leads to the heating.

Now regardless of what you think has triggered the temperature increases we are currently witnessing, I'm sure all you nay-sayers are well educated on the topic and are therefore concerned with, say, the potential for billions of tons of greenhouse gases being released by melting tundra and the effects that will have in concert with human emissions. Or perhaps you may be concerned with slowing of the gulf stream, the current that moderates temperatures in Europe.

It's just baffling that we readily commit such abundant resources to sepculative missions such as locating phantom WMDs and bringing democracy to one middle east nation among several repressive regimes we have no problem tolerating and doing business with when efforts to combat global warming could potentially have a huge impact on our lives and the lives of our children and grandchilden while at the same time weening us from the teet of of foreign oil.

But according to XJ, bringing awareness to global warming was just a political ploy by Al Gore. Again, one of the stupidest things ever posted on KZone.

[XtremeJibber2001]

But according to XJ, bringing awareness to global warming was just a political ploy by Al Gore. Again, one of the stupidest things ever posted on KZone.

If it's not political ... why not show both sides of the coin?

[XtremeJibber2001]

The thing about this entire issue that makes me see red is that the science of increased carbon in the atmosphere leading to heat being trapped in the atmosphere is irrefutable. What's also without question is that humans release enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and, particularly in 3rd world countries where ther are removing the fauna that removes the CO2 that leads to the heating.

Now regardless of what you think has triggered the temperature increases we are currently witnessing, I'm sure all you nay-sayers are well educated on the topic and are therefore concerned with, say, the potential for billions of tons of greenhouse gases being released by melting tundra and the effects that will have in concert with human emissions. Or perhaps you may be concerned with slowing of the gulf stream, the current that moderates temperatures in Europe.

There is no doubt (in my eyes) that the World is warming. Both of the articles you posted outline the consequences we could reap if certain events occur. However, both articles neglect to state that humans are the cause of either event nor does it state if we as humans can do anything to stop these events. Gore has created a movie that is based on the notion that humans are causing global warming and he'll use this as a platform to run in 08 IMHO.

Just like many in this forum were stating that GWB was scaring all the 'soccer moms' into voting for him because GWB had convinced them they're unsafe without him. A similar instance can be seen with Gore, except this time, it's OK, why you ask, probably because he's a dem.

If Gore really cared, he'd create a movie that shows all different sides. It would show discussions amongst scientists that state humans 'are the cause' and 'humans aren't the cause'. Gore would show scientific evidence from his facts about 300,000 dead instead of merely stating them as fact and there are no questions about it. If you don't think Gore made the movie for political means, you're more blind than I.

[Bubba]

... Again, one of the stupidest things ever posted on KZone.

I'm afraid you're wrong. There have been far stupider things posted here.

[Cityskier]

Oh and i think city was suggesting that since you are a waste of bandwith, maybe you should stop posting, not him. You seem to have gotten confused on that too.

I hardly think a person such as CS that is concerned with personal rights would suggest I cease and desist. I'm sure CS appreciates you speaking on his behalf, however.

Don't fool yourself, dude. If you never put up another idiotic post I'd still sleep pretty soundly.

And for the record, I'm much more comfortable with 2knees speaking for me that you. I think he could do a pretty good job of it...you not so much.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Oh and i think city was suggesting that since you are a waste of bandwith, maybe you should stop posting, not him. You seem to have gotten confused on that too.

I hardly think a person such as CS that is concerned with personal rights would suggest I cease and desist. I'm sure CS appreciates you speaking on his behalf, however.

Don't fool yourself, dude. If you never put up another idiotic post I'd still sleep pretty soundly.

And for the record, I'm much more comfortable with 2knees speaking for me that you. I think he could do a pretty good job of it...you not so much.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... 5FFYysgMMF

Using words properly is uncommon in these parts.

[SkiDork]

Oh and i think city was suggesting that since you are a waste of bandwith, maybe you should stop posting, not him. You seem to have gotten confused on that too.

I hardly think a person such as CS that is concerned with personal rights would suggest I cease and desist. I'm sure CS appreciates you speaking on his behalf, however.

Don't fool yourself, dude. If you never put up another idiotic post I'd still sleep pretty soundly.

And for the record, I'm much more comfortable with 2knees speaking for me that you. I think he could do a pretty good job of it...you not so much.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... 5FFYysgMMF

Using words properly is uncommon in these parts.

I'd call that a typo, not grammar error

[BigKahuna13]

The thing about this entire issue that makes me see red is that the science of increased carbon in the atmosphere leading to heat being trapped in the atmosphere is irrefutable. What's also without question is that humans release enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and, particularly in 3rd world countries where ther are removing the fauna that removes the CO2 that leads to the heating.

Now regardless of what you think has triggered the temperature increases we are currently witnessing, I'm sure all you nay-sayers are well educated on the topic and are therefore concerned with, say, the potential for billions of tons of greenhouse gases being released by melting tundra and the effects that will have in concert with human emissions. Or perhaps you may be concerned with slowing of the gulf stream, the current that moderates temperatures in Europe.

There is no doubt (in my eyes) that the World is warming. Both of the articles you posted outline the consequences we could reap if certain events occur. However, both articles neglect to state that humans are the cause of either event nor does it state if we as humans can do anything to stop these events. Gore has created a movie that is based on the notion that humans are causing global warming and he'll use this as a platform to run in 08 IMHO.

Just like many in this forum were stating that GWB was scaring all the 'soccer moms' into voting for him because GWB had convinced them they're unsafe without him. A similar instance can be seen with Gore, except this time, it's OK, why you ask, probably because he's a dem.

If Gore really cared, he'd create a movie that shows all different sides. It would show discussions amongst scientists that state humans 'are the cause' and 'humans aren't the cause'. Gore would show scientific evidence from his facts about 300,000 dead instead of merely stating them as fact and there are no questions about it. If you don't think Gore made the movie for political means, you're more blind than I.

One point you're missing in bashing Gore is that a majority of scientists back the theory that global warming is caused in large part by greenhouse emissions. Creditable scientists who don't hold this viewpoint are in the minority.

Gore's goal in making the film then probably wasn't to have a debate on the science, he by all accounts considers the science settled. Rather his goal was probably to popularize a view that he personally holds. And it's in all probability not an 08 campaign issue for him or at least not primarily one. He's been talking about global warming for years.

Looked at the junkscience.com article, haven't read it fully but will at some point. Not really impressed. Don't know much about the subject at a technical level but he makes some silly arguments.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The thing about this entire issue that makes me see red is that the science of increased carbon in the atmosphere leading to heat being trapped in the atmosphere is irrefutable. What's also without question is that humans release enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and, particularly in 3rd world countries where ther are removing the fauna that removes the CO2 that leads to the heating.

Now regardless of what you think has triggered the temperature increases we are currently witnessing, I'm sure all you nay-sayers are well educated on the topic and are therefore concerned with, say, the potential for billions of tons of greenhouse gases being released by melting tundra and the effects that will have in concert with human emissions. Or perhaps you may be concerned with slowing of the gulf stream, the current that moderates temperatures in Europe.

There is no doubt (in my eyes) that the World is warming. Both of the articles you posted outline the consequences we could reap if certain events occur. However, both articles neglect to state that humans are the cause of either event nor does it state if we as humans can do anything to stop these events. Gore has created a movie that is based on the notion that humans are causing global warming and he'll use this as a platform to run in 08 IMHO.

Just like many in this forum were stating that GWB was scaring all the 'soccer moms' into voting for him because GWB had convinced them they're unsafe without him. A similar instance can be seen with Gore, except this time, it's OK, why you ask, probably because he's a dem.

If Gore really cared, he'd create a movie that shows all different sides. It would show discussions amongst scientists that state humans 'are the cause' and 'humans aren't the cause'. Gore would show scientific evidence from his facts about 300,000 dead instead of merely stating them as fact and there are no questions about it. If you don't think Gore made the movie for political means, you're more blind than I.

One point you're missing in bashing Gore is that a majority of scientists back the theory that global warming is caused in large part by greenhouse emissions. Creditable scientists who don't hold this viewpoint are in the minority.

Gore's goal in making the film then probably wasn't to have a debate on the science, he by all accounts considers the science settled. Rather his goal was probably to popularize a view that he personally holds. And it's in all probability not an 08 campaign issue for him or at least not primarily one. He's been talking about global warming for years.

Looked at the junkscience.com article, haven't read it fully but will at some point. Not really impressed. Don't know much about the subject at a technical level but he makes some silly arguments.

Just because you're part of the majority, doesn't make it right, look at the 2004 election ...

You're right he didn't want a debate, as far a Gore was concerned "the debate in the scientific community is over." Which Gore said in an interview with Stephanopoulos on ABC before the film came out.

Well it's certainly not "Political" in Gore's eyes ... in the same interview he referred to his motives as a "Moral Crusade". We'll see in 2008, I'll still be here and we'll see if *human caused* global warming is what he runs on.

You can read whatever you want, whether it be posted by CNN, by a scientist at MIT that think humans have a minscule impact on warming, or you can watch a Gore movie and believe the end is near.

My point is Gore should have delivered a movie that covered the whole truth about global warming ... not just "his" truth.

[Cityskier]

My point is Gore should have delivered a movie that covered the whole truth about global warming ... not just "his" truth.

Preface: Believe me when I say I derive no glee from showing what a friggen moron you are.

In your infinite wisdom you choose a website by Steven Milloy (junkscience.com) to support your argument that Al Gore's movie on global warming had a political agenda and was one-sided.

So here we go:

FACTSHEET: Steven Milloy
DETAILS
Founder and Publisher, junkscience.com
Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute Columnist, FoxNews.com Director, Advancement of Sound Science Center/Coalition.

One of the primary purposes of his website, junkscience.com, is to "debunk" environmentalism. Milloy has started a host of short-lived "organizations" to provide financial cover for his activities. These indude Citizens for the Integrity of Science, The Advancement of Sound Science Center, NoMoreScares.com, Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc, and the Environmental Policy Analysis Network. Some have been registered as non-profits with the IRS, but have one employee (Milloy) and sometimes one other board member.

Milloy was once Executive Director of the defunct Advancement of Sound Science Coalition and is still the director of the Advancement of Sound Science Center, an apparently related entity. He was also Director of the National Environmental Policy Institute. Milloy's publications include "Junk Science Judo," "Science without Sense" (Cato Institute, 1995), "Science-Based Risk Assessment: A Piece of the Superfund Puzzle" (National Environmental Policy Institute, 1995) and "Silencing Science" (Cato Institute 1999) which he co-wrote with Michael Gough. Though Milloy denies ever having been a lobbyist, Milloy shows up in federal lobbying registration data for 1997 as having expenditures on his behalf, indicating his firm, the EOP Group, believed him to be an active lobbyist. The same federal records indicate Milloy represented the American Petroleum Institute, FMC Corp, Fort Howard, International Food Additives Council, and Monsanto. Interestingly, according to these records, Milloy lobbied for Monsanto on the subject of "food safety and labeling," which is lobbyist speak for "biotech foods." (Center for Responsive Politics, Lobbyist Database) According to the Washington Representatives, Milloy was still registered as a lobbyist with the EOP Group in 1999, with the American Petroleum Institute and FMC Corp listed as clients. (1999 Washington Representatives).

"Milloy earned a B.A. in natural sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a master of health sciences in biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, a juris doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a master of laws from the Georgetown University Law Center." (Cato website, 4/04)

Lobbyist, American Petroleum Institute, Monsanto? Very interesting!

He has entire websites devoted to correcting his lies:

http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm

and exposing his real motivations:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606

shill for big polluting businesses:

http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Dow/junkscicom.htm

junkscience.com...thank you for smoking:

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/stevenmilloy.pdf

HE EVEN HATES BABIES!!!:

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Industry ... milloy.htm

I could go on, but one thing Fox News has taught me is always leave them hanging with the hating babies story.

You're a joke XJ. The only reason I care is that you get a vote too.

[XtremeJibber2001]

You're a joke XJ. The only reason I care is that you get a vote too.

I'll give you this one. We don't need to re-hash your 'Rove Indicted' source again, do we? I'm a moron for citing a poor source, what's that make you for posting your laughable source?