Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 148):

Hah. No response to this:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145): And of course, this goes back to when Gore was VP that this was not ratified.

or this

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 144): Sometimes I wonder if people like you really think before you actually post such knee-jerk BS. There are fuel efficient cars he can use (which he does use sometimes) and commercial jets, which are far more efficient than other private jets, but I guess Mr. Gore is just to good for. A 737, 757, or even a 767 hauling 150 people across the US is far more efficient per person than a private jet hauling 5. In case you don't believe me: I flew in a Boeing 767-200 from ATL to PDX in April 2005. Before takeoff, the Captain came on and was like "just FYI, we'll be burning about 8,000 gallons of jet-fuel on our way to Portland tonight". Now let's say a private jet hauling 5 people burns 1200 gallons. 1200/5 = 240 gallons per person 8000/150 = 53.33 gallons per person. So for a cross country trip, by flying commerically instead of on a private jet, he could reduce his carbon footprint by nearly 200 gallons. Let's say he even had to connect, and bumped it up to 70 or 80 gallons. Still far less than his 240. But good try.

You challenge me on a point I made, and then when I blow your response out of the water, you don't respond at all, and when AndesSMF does the same, you just respond with the typical "hatred of Gore" response without posting anything that actually cotributes to the discussion.

So would you mind actually either A) countering my point about Gore using inefficient means when more efficient modes are available or B) conceeding the point that Gore is a phony.
I won't hold my breath.

[Edited 2007-10-13 12:14:53]

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 149): Bullshit, plain and simple unadultered bullshit.

No. The per-capita CO2 output of the USA is still about double that of Europe.

Which means that efficiency is significantly worse.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 149): There is almost NO WAY of obtaining non-energy efficient stuff here in the US. It is a HUGE deal in construction.

Energy efficiency involves far more than littering your construction with "stuff" that's blessed by a label that says "energy efficient". It is a matter of life style, construction principles and behaviour.

No doubt that many americans are looking for changes. But that's not moving the total needle all that much so far.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 150): Hah. No response to this: Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145): And of course, this goes back to when Gore was VP that this was not ratified.

At the time the republican-dominated Congress was expected to refuse any constructive agreement as far as I recall. Gore was one of the few among the US delegation who actually tried to cooperate with the Kyoto process as well as he could.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 150): and then when I blow your response out of the water

You haven't. Gore compensates his entire CO2 footprint as far as I'm aware, including fuel burned for flying.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 149):

Dear lad, calm yourself, you are loosing your cool. It is us who should feel uneasy for the neglect that some people show for the environment.

So quite the contrary, all evidence shows that it is our nation the main polluter, are we doing anything about the subject? Perhaps, but it is far too insignificant.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 152): You haven't. Gore compensates his entire CO2 footprint as far as I'm aware, including fuel burned for flying.

Let's say that's true. Still doesn't change the fact that there are more efficient options Mr. Gore can use to futher minimize his carbon footprint. Sorry.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 151): The per-capita CO2 output of the USA is still about double that of Europe.

And that is thanks to government. Because for one, the requirements now call for a lot of lighting in exterior spaces, that are to be on all night. It has finally started to dawn on some of the powers that be that having lights stay on all night is not that efficient. Of course, there is also a difference between travel in the US and Europe. Plus Europe uses a hell of a lot more nuclear power than we do. Not mention that parts of the US get a little hotter in the summer than Europe. All those contribute to the CO2 output difference.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 151): Energy efficiency involves far more than littering your construction with "stuff" that's blessed by a label that says "energy efficient".

Yeah, right, obviously you know sooo much about how things are built here.   

Among the things that get 'labeled'

1. High-efficiency fluorescent lighting
2. Higher levels of insulation on walls and ceilings.
3. Cool Roofs
4. Mandatory controls
5. A/C units
6. Dual Pane windows
7. etc.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 153): all evidence shows that it is our nation the main polluter,

China just overtook us.

Oh yes, my apologies 1.3 billion People China just recently overtook us. We should be proud of not being number 1, we are number 2 now. 300 million people US is now number 2!!!!

Awesome news!

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 154): Let's say that's true. Still doesn't change the fact that there are more efficient options Mr. Gore can use to futher minimize his carbon footprint. Sorry.

Nothing to be sorry about. And Al Gore will most probably agree as well that he'll need to improve his own efficiency further.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 155): And that is thanks to government.

Yeah, we've had nonsensical and wasteful regulations as well. It takes time to reorganize for increased efficiency, and that is what makes the Bush administration's close ties to the oil industry so unfortunate with the resulting indifference or even hostility to any progress.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 155): Yeah, right, obviously you know sooo much about how things are built here.

The total numbers are qute telling already. It seems the USA are about one or two decades behind in total. I'm well aware that there are positive regional, local or individual examples, but what counts is a concerted, consistent approach which really brings the total numbers down.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 156): China just overtook us.

Whoop-dee-doo. It takes more than four chinese to produce as much pollution as one single american - and that even with the horribly inefficient coal plants they've got all over the place.

Quite a case of rather low standards, isn't it?   

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 153): So quite the contrary, all evidence shows that it is our nation the main polluter, are we doing anything about the subject? Perhaps, but it is far too insignificant.

Since when is CO2 a pollutant.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 157): Oh yes, my apologies 1.3 billion People China just recently overtook us. We should be proud of not being number 1, we are number 2 now. 300 million people US is now number 2!!!! Awesome news!

And then it will be India and Indonesia. Do you think AlGores blowhard film is going to stop them from developing. You better buy your gasmask now and then dig your hole for you and Klaus.

I guess we should just shut everything down in our country. But then what would we be able to tax for Hillarycare and ALBores carbon tax.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 158): The total numbers are qute telling already. It seems the USA are about one or two decades behind in total. I'm well aware that there are positive regional, local or individual examples, but what counts is a concerted, consistent approach which really brings the total numbers down.

Well, since you continue to commence with your smarmy attempt, to defend Gore's typical hypocrisy. May I add, that one of the reasons for the US's CO2 output is our higher standard of living, larger houses, more cars, & less dependant on public transportation, due to the US's lower population density making public transportation not feasible for a significant portion of the country.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...c0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Quoting Klaus (Reply 151): No. The per-capita CO2 output of the USA is still about double that of Europe.

The US also has 1/2 the unemployment of Europe. Gives far more to needy nations & poor than the EU!!! Sorry, but it takes a lot energy to step up for other nations that can't or choose not to pull their own weight helping the world's poor!!! What's upsetting is that fact that many nations are jealous of America's ability to do so much more than other nations, that some will resort to flat out lying about the US.

It's obvious many people simply choose to conveniently ignore all of the many positive things the US does to help the world. Yet, gets so little credit for it!

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3712

Press Release: U.S. Private International Giving to Developing World Exceeds $62 Billion

What such criticism ignores, however, is that the measure, developed by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), fails to take into account the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. "ODA is an outdated and inaccurate way of measuring a country's generosity," says Dr. Adelman, Director of the Center for Science in Public Policy, at the Hudson Institute. "Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid."

Nor does the OECD fully measure count U.S. military contributions to peacekeeping and security, U.S. private industry investments that generate the bulk of research and development for better food and medicines, or preferential trade agreements that support imports from developing countries. The measure also excludes the $1.5 billion in foreign aid that the U.S. provides to Israel, Central and Eastern Europe, and Russia since these countries exceed the OECD poverty criterion.



US Donates 80% Of Food Aid For Darfur,Sudan

http://www.hungercenter.org/CHC/news19.htm

International Food Aid to Darfur, Sudan

May 2006

Panelists stressed the importance of the relationship between the United States and the World Food Program. The United States is the largest donor to the World Food Program in general, and also to Sudan, specifically. Last year, the US was responsible for 80% of the food aid for Darfur.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 160): due to the US's lower population density making public transportation not feasible for a significant portion of the country.

I call that the Detroit "Lobby" more than anything else about our deficient public transportation. America is the nation with more cars per capita, but it is not because our "low population density" you know that 80% of our population lives in Urban areas or suburbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Quoting OU812 (Reply 160): It's obvious many people simply choose to conveniently ignore all of the many positive things the US does to help the world. Yet, gets so little credit for it!

I don't think it's ignored at all, just a bit off-topic here.

The question if Gore and the IPCC deserve the Nobel Price bases on the respective definition of "peace". Both didn't contribute much to the establishment of peace in say Gaza or Darfur, nor did they help much to enforce human rights in Tibet or Iraq.

At the same time, more than 2,400,000 acre (1,000,000 ha) of rainforest is eradicated every year with the corresponding consequences for animals, climate and indigenous people. And I read somewhere that every day about 3 species of plants and animals become extinct. This is some kind of destruction that resembles war more than peace. Same with global warming. If the climate change causes sea levels to rise, reduces natural habitats and causes death and migration (with migration being a potential trigger of civil wars), "War on Nature" should be as a commonly accepted notion as "War on Terror", let alone "War on Drugs" are.

N. <-- former member of amnesty international, another laureate of the Nobel Peace Price. 

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 133): There is ample proof that both of them, "avoided" the service.

Then provide it since you are the one making the accusation. The Presidents military record is a matter of public record. Who cares about the Vice Presidents.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 133): Prove that he served in Vietnam at least a day.

There were millions of men and women who served between 1965 and 1973 that never served a day in Vietnam. Are you impugning them as well?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 163): Then provide it since you are the one making the accusation. The Presidents military record is a matter of public record. Who cares about the Vice Presidents.

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." George W Bush

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114162/

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 163): There were millions of men and women who served between 1965 and 1973 that never served a day in Vietnam. Are you impugning them as well?

So I suposse he was of the lucky "millions" who never saw action because he was on the National Guard which was considered at that time the best place to "avoid" war.

The point is Gore did see action, and yes Gore is by far superior in everything compared to GWB. Well anyone could be superior than GWB...

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 164): So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." George W Bush

Yes, that would be jet fighter airplanes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pleeker/187901498/

http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/wp-images/bush-pilot.jpg

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...=291&oid=12821478c3b76daa&ei=UTF-8

http://bushwatch.org/bushair.jpg

If you think it was easy to fly those old century series fighters you'd better think again. Compared to today's jet fighters those things were like driving a 1950's chevy with 3 on the tree. You can poke fun all you want but I bet neither you, nor Al Gore could do it.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 164): So I suposse he was of the lucky "millions" who never saw action because he was on the National Guard which was considered at that time the best place to "avoid" war.

So you are impugning those that served and serve in the National Gaurd, the Army, Marine, Air Force, and Naval reserve. Not to mention the Coast Guard. Very nice. As a fellow veteran, I will thank you not only for myself but for the President for your support of ALL of our fighting men and women past and present.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 164): The point is Gore did see action,

When he wanted to and when the photographer was around. Read up on it.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 164): and yes Gore is by far superior in everything compared to GWB.

Except in being able to run a campaign in which he wins the Office of the President of the United States. ooops.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 146): Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region

This is 100% CRAP! I live in the same zone as Gore, but farther South, i.e. even hotter by a bit. My house is about 45% the size of his, 100% electric and my power bill is less than 20% of his - remember he's buying gas as well. It's not complicated to build a house that's efficient, it added 2.5-3% to the cost of the house at the most to do this.

The only thing you're halfway correct about here is that his energy usage per sq ft is about average for the region. Of cuorse, that's not exactly setting a Nobel Peace Prize type of example, is it? Face it, the guy is a hypocritical holier than thou asshole

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 165):

This is getting off topic, you are obviously trying to ignore the first part of his quote which is why I say he avoided combat, he did in fact admit that he was a coward.

That was my point, he did avoid combat, I have not said a thing about being a pilot which is another subject which gathers a lot of controversy which among many things it was clear that he had to be let go off the service for "failing to meet the attendance requirements" which is believed for not passing the physical or taking.

Lets stick to the subject?

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 167): Lets stick to the subject?

I'm sorry,you have impugned millions of American men and women who have served with honor without serving in combat as being cowards, and that includes the current President. I'd say you owe a lot of people just on the A.net site a huge apology.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 167): This is getting off topic, you are obviously trying to ignore the first part of his quote which is why I say he avoided combat, he did in fact admit that he was a coward. That was my point, he did avoid combat, I have not said a thing about being a pilot which is another subject which gathers a lot of controversy which among many things it was clear that he had to be let go off the service for "failing to meet the attendance requirements" which is believed for not passing the physical or taking. Lets stick to the subject?

Yea, you're one to talk about ignoring points.
I'm still waiting for a response to my posts- Reply 144/150. So I don't know why you're talking about "sticking to the subject" when you won't even respond to points that are within the subject.   

In this article, it essentially explains how the small gains that Europe has achieved in reducing CO2 emmissions are not coming mainly from the sacrifice of Europeans, but from changes in the fuel source for their power sources. So I guess we are not so different.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071014/ap_on_re_eu/europe_clean_cities

Quoting Klaus (Reply 151): It is a matter of life style, construction principles and behaviour.

Guess perhaps you should look in your backyard first, huh?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 158): It takes more than four chinese to produce as much pollution as one single american - and that even with the horribly inefficient coal plants they've got all over the place.

Guess what? They still pollute overall more than we do, and if that is not addressed, whatever the US does means crap to the overall problem.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 158): It seems the USA are about one or two decades behind in total. I'm well aware that there are positive regional, local or individual examples, but what counts is a concerted, consistent approach which really brings the total numbers down.

What part are you not understanding? These are NATIONAL codes that get updated and stricter every 3 years.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 161): America is the nation with more cars per capita, but it is not because our "low population density" you know that 80% of our population lives in Urban areas or suburbs.

Many other places have far more density within their Urban cores than many of the densest US urban areas.

Of course, I would love to hear the reasons YOU don't use public transportation.

Quoting Continental (Thread starter): I, for one, am glad that he received it.

It just goes to show how much Hollywood and Politics control what we "think"

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become.    Here is what the British Court decided about Gore's movie, after the Government tried to make it part of the school curiculum:

Not that this information will ever get much traction over here.  

Quoting Columba (Reply 13): Interesting that two politicans that are very controversial in their own country have achieved this honor: Jimmy Carter and Al Gore

So you get the award for being a pussy it seems. Gore is a looser and looked like a frigging deer in headlights when he went up against GWB during the debates, and then refused to agree that he lost. Carter.. well, lets just say that he was much more effective as a house builder than a president.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 15): Gone are the days when guys like Teddy R. and ML King won it - now we have the days when Jimmy Carter (failure w/Iran), Arafat (terrorist poster boy) and Gore (political spin doctor) win.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 151): No. The per-capita CO2 output of the USA is still about double that of Europe.Which means that efficiency is significantly worse.

Thats because Americans live in houses which are bigger that shoe boxes and we have "Air Conditioning" which seems to be a mystery in Europe. Don't forget that much of the US is very hot, and hence AC is a necessity.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 158): It seems the USA are about one or two decades behind in total. I'm well aware that there are positive regional, local or individual examples, but what counts is a concerted, consistent approach which really brings the total numbers down.

a. there is no real reason to bring CO2 emissions down, other that to reduce oil imports.
b. the US has a different climactic conditions and geography which require more fuel
c. the US is two decades ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to pollution controls and managing the environment. If you don't believe me, then look into who introduced the catalytic converter, agressive plant scrubbers, and then take a trip through the Rhineland or Easter Europe, and I'm sure you'll agree.

Don't believe everything Hollywood and Politicians say.

iwok

Cult film (n) - a colloquial term for a film that has acquired a highly devoted but relatively small group of fans.

Samuel L Jackson shoulda won the prize for Snakes on a Plane... I have yet to see a single snake on a plane after the release of that movie, which definitely makes the world a more peaceful place. Great work Samuel L!!

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 164): was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." George W Bush

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

Bill Clinton's Draft Dodge Letter!

Quoting Iwok (Reply 171): Thats because Americans live in houses which are bigger that shoe boxes and we have "Air Conditioning" which seems to be a mystery in Europe. Don't forget that much of the US is very hot, and hence AC is a necessity.

Europe certainly could have use those A/C's in the summer of 2003! It appears there's a greater issue in the EU of having adequate staff to maintain minimum care for their elderly than Global warming! Over 35,000 deaths occurred in Europe in just days.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259.html

European heatwave caused 35,000 deaths

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3139694.stm

French heat toll almost 15,000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3181941.stm

Those shifting makeshift coffins into temporary morgues in Paris wear masks to protect them from the smell of the bodies of the elderly victims of France's heatwave.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 146): c) On a closer look Gore doesn't appear to be the hypocrite he's claimed to be after all: The Anonymous Liberal: Gore's Energy Use

Oh Klaus how could you try to spoil the fun with a few facts, that sort of thing will get you unpopular in some quarters, best go back to suggesting they inhale their daily Cl requirements in elemental form!!   
I think it must be the first time I have seen a German called smarmy. I hope you will wear that as a badge of honour!

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 159): And then it will be India and Indonesia. Do you think AlGores blowhard film is going to stop them from developing. You better buy your gasmask now and then dig your hole for you and Klaus.

And I suppose that you know, Wgnut, that if you draw more than ?900 watts (number from memory but it is close to that) from the power supply to your house in Indonesia (assuming you have electric power), the cut-off switch on the wall trips and has to be reset once you get the power demand down. To get a higher setting you have to pay considerably more per kw hour. And in most areas, the limit is 2300 watts. Most electric kettles in Indonesia are between 150 and 250 watts. Even that amount of electricity supply taxes the infrastructure very heavily.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

Since peace is a political concept, saying something "political" shouldn't win the Peace Prize isn't IMO fruitful.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): In other words, it is a propaganda piece, not a documentary, no more so than Triumph of the Wills

Emm? I had to check my notes here and still can't quite think of anything polite to say.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 27): Disgusting. Put out a BS piece of enviro-hysteria that isn't even truth,

See Klaus, since there were some details wrong, or insufficienlty supported, in the film the film is now "not true". Of course, the British court specifically criticized some parts of the film for not being in agreement with the IPCC's work.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 33): Could someone enlighten me as to the last time two or more countries or peoples went to war over global warming

This is a relevant point. The Nobel committee has recently been expanding the concept of "peace" in their decisions, remember that last year's winner got the prize for his work on microloans in the developing world.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 36): To call the US the "far right fringe" is a gross lie

He didn't call the US the "far right fringe", he called US Republicans as the "far right fringe".

Quoting Michlis (Reply 38): Except that he flies around in a private jet and uses more electricity each month than a small suburb.

I haven't quite figured out yet, why an environmental campaigner couldn't have credibility unless s/he lived as a hermit in a cave. We don't know if Gore's jet is carbon-offset, but what's likely true in any case is that his campaigning is more effective when he moves around. If his jetting leads to 10 million people reducing their energy consumption by 5%, it's a great trade.

Quoting Bofredrik (Reply 45): Al Gore:s movie is stopped in UK schools and can not be shown there.

Nope, it can be shown as the court reaffirmed that the bulk of the information there was correct. What was considered unsupported was criticized by the court for being at variance with what the IPCC has produced.

Quoting Banco (Reply 46): Furthermore, if the perspective espoused by Gore is so clearly the conventional wisdom, why did he feel the need to offer so much "evidence" that consisted of half-truths, exaggerations and even flat out lies.

Here again it should be reminded that easily most of the information in the film was assessed to be correct, and to be correct largely because it's in-line with the IPCC's reports.

Quoting Banco (Reply 52): You've seen the list above. Given that some of them are pretty basic, it is inconceivable that with the number of scientists involved in advising Gore, that it could be an "error".

I wasn't involoved in the making of the film, but I suppose it's a hectic process. However, again remember that they got the vast majority of the data correct.

Quoting Slider (Reply 80): You can find a bunch of scientists, I can find a bunch of scientists who say something else, we can have a big ole science circle jerk and we�ll have this argument again about Kyoto, or global warming, or the enviro-cultists again in a few months.

This is exactly what I have to take issue with - you portray this as an even dispute, when it is not. The vast bulk of climatologists endorse the IPCC's work, the "sceptics" are a small minority - therefore if we "collected" scientists then the IPCC's camp would be much larger than the "Singer" camp.

Quoting Slider (Reply 80): Many of Gore�s claims have been factually repudiated, it�s classic Hollywood embellishment packaged for emotional reaction.

I wouldn't say "many", I'd say "few" and not all of them were factually repudiated but assessed to be insufficiently supported. I'd also say that "most" of Gore's claims have been endorsed by the British court, and these are the key points: that human-caused release of GHG in to the atmosphere is causing the atmosphere to warm.

Quoting Slider (Reply 80): Reagan

Reagan provided weapons to terrorists in Central America, who used them to kill tens of thousands of people and eventually e.g. overthrow Nicaragua's elected government. Reagan also instigated a huge weapons build-up in the US, overall I don't think he was ever a strong candidate for the Peace Prize and cannot be nominated anymore since he's dead.

Quoting Banco (Reply 84): It seems that the doomsayers are of the view that climate change means that all weather everywhere will get worse.

This isn't what the IPCC is saying. However the situation will get worse for the peoples already most vulnerable, such as many African populations since the food production capacity of the areas they inhabit will decline.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 97): CO2 IS REQUIRED FOR LIFE ON EARTH.

This is true, and no-one here is advocating that we remove all of it from the atmosphere. Oxygen is also needed for humans to live, but if the concentration is too high we'll die.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 125): Do you have any belief, that 100 years from now, our current knowledge would still be considered valid?

Partly, partly not. Newtonian gravity will still be used in it's area of applicability and the idea that a higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to a stronger greenhouse effect will most certainly also be there. The idea is so basic that it would be the height of irresponsibility to make plans assuming it would go away.

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace prize. Saw that on TV last night and my first thought was

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): What a complete crock of crap.

then I switched channels, not before noticing that the boy certainly has put on some weight lately. Then I realised, obviously, he's full of shit kindly confirmed by the Nobel committee whose last remaining credibility just went south faster than a duck in winter.

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): Newtonian gravity

Already somewhat superseded, BTW.

"Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in most cases."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 168): I'm sorry,you have impugned millions of American men and women who have served with honor without serving in combat as being cowards, and that includes the current President. I'd say you owe a lot of people just on the A.net site a huge apology.

Not at all, you apparently take pleasure and amuse yourself putting words on peoples mouths in order to humiliate them, I am afraid I will not fall on your trap. I said exactly that your war hero is a coward, and he admitted to it in a quote you also gave validity. I then said that the NG was never meant to see combat in Vietnam, and apparently papa Bush knowing this (I suppose he had a crystal ball and knew it) made the necessary arrangements that his beloved son would have the privilege of saying that he was in the armed forces but never needed to face real combat. End of story.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 169): Yea, you're one to talk about ignoring points. I'm still waiting for a response to my posts- Reply 144/150. So I don't know why you're talking about "sticking to the subject" when you won't even respond to points that are within the subject.

It is of no use to try and further research a topic when clearly the bias of the majority of the people in this thread is anti-Gore and anti-enviormental cause. No point in continuing to argue if obviously I would always be wrong. No? with such ignorance?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 170): Of course, I would love to hear the reasons YOU don't use public transportation.

Well pal, I lived the most part of my life in NY, and when I came down to South Florida to study, I found myself obliged to buy a car since the deficient public transportation system has compelled me to do so. I was completely happy taking the subway but no, down in suburban America is a whole different story, guess who's idea was it? The Detroit lobby. I shan't further speak of the subject we all know how they managed to do this.

Because you are rich and have the wonderful conformity of your luxury automobiles you might just say that you would prefer to drive on your own rather than use the bus or train. For me I haven't much choice, the system already has made me as well as many millions of Americans dependent on individual transportation.

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): Since peace is a political concept, saying something "political" shouldn't win the Peace Prize isn't IMO fruitful.

Peace is not political. Politics is indeed the antithesis of peace, as politics thrives on conflict.

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): Emm? I had to check my notes here and still can't quite think of anything polite to say.

Definitions of propaganda:

American Heritage:
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition -
propaganda
Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect.

You cannot say that Gore's movie does not fit EXACTLY these definitions. They are meant to influence, while disguised as a documentary. Check out documentaries in your local video store. They are generally dry and factual.

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): See Klaus, since there were some details wrong, or insufficienlty supported, in the film the film is now "not true". Of course, the British court specifically criticized some parts of the film for not being in agreement with the IPCC's work.

And declared it as "political indoctrination"

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): Quoting DL021 (Reply 36): To call the US the "far right fringe" is a gross lie He didn't call the US the "far right fringe", he called US Republicans as the "far right fringe".

Which is also untrue. Only a small part of the Republicans are right fringe. How much of the Democratic party are far left fringe?

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): I haven't quite figured out yet, why an environmental campaigner couldn't have credibility unless s/he lived as a hermit in a cave.

Don't go so drastic. But why would a man and his wife need more than, say, 3 or 4 thousand square feet of living space, if he is so worried about environmental impact?

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): We don't know if Gore's jet is carbon-offset,

If you believe ANY of his existance is offset, you are smoking something. He pays for these offsets to a company owned by him. The company has never shown any evidence of offseting anything.

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): Nope, it can be shown as the court reaffirmed that the bulk of the information there was correct. What was considered unsupported was criticized by the court for being at variance with what the IPCC has produced.

Once again, the film as a whole was declared to be political indoctrination.

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): I wasn't involoved in the making of the film, but I suppose it's a hectic process. However, again remember that they got the vast majority of the data correct.

Tom Clancy also has a vast amount of his data correct. So does Michael Chrichton. But their works are labeled fiction. Because if you take 99% truth and mix it with 1% bull&%it, you get fiction.

Quoting Joni (Reply 175): This is exactly what I have to take issue with - you portray this as an even dispute, when it is not. The vast bulk of climatologists endorse the IPCC's work, the "sceptics" are a small minority

It IS in dispute. Science is not a matter for consensus. Science is based on the scientific process - i.e. hypothesis, proof, and conclusion. Global warming itself is a proven fact, by this process. We have the records to prove it. Global warming via significant human influence is a hypothesis - nobody can prove it so far. The ability for humans to alter the global warming trend is also only a hypothesis. Nobody can prove it. Yet.

Maybe one day they can prove it. I sincerely hope they do, because I suspect they might be right. but don't give me this BS that it is a proven fact, because it isn't, and you are insulting my intelligence in saying it is. If it were a proven fact, not one single creditable scientist would dispute it, but in fact there are many thousands.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): It is of no use to try and further research a topic when clearly the bias of the majority of the people in this thread is anti-Gore and anti-enviormental cause. No point in continuing to argue if obviously I would always be wrong. No? with such ignorance?

  
I believe this translates to "Damn, I have no effective response and was proven wrong and I might actually have to call out this guy as a hypocrite and a phony since I have no defense. But I don't want to do that, so I'll just continue to pull the 'anti-Gore' or 'anti-environmental' card rather than debate the issue or concede the point."


So do you actually have a response or defense as to why environmental warrior Mr. Gore needs to fly around the nation in private jets when more efficient commercial transportation is available? I'm thinking not.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): For me I haven't much choice, the system already has made me as well as many millions of Americans dependent on individual transportation.

Ah, perfect, what a typical victim analogy. 'I couldn't do it because of...'

Hey, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and spite Detroit doing what some of my right-wing fringe friends do. Buy yourself a motorcycle.

How about it?

I think that everyone here that is against Al Gore's campaign towards the environment is wasting their time in these forums.

Reason for which is if they are smarter than him, and if they are so sure that he is wrong, that he is a hypocrite.. and along everything else leading to demonizing him and the environmentalists, they surely could be doing many important things rather than debating with a bunch of deadbeats who support him in these forums.

Those things are like for example, writing a book on a counter argument on why he is wrong and why he shouldn't be leading this example. Good luck making the book a best seller, also good luck getting able to do lectures across the globe... good luck in finding some producers to buy your book rights and do a movie on which you yourself would be starring on it with the counter argument. Good luck after the movie comes out with the reviewers, good luck later with winning the academy award. Good luck later on your campaign that would be later recognized with a Nobel peace price.

Again, you folks are wasting your time here. Go out there and tell the world your arguments, they might be right, but believe me you will have hundreds if not thousands of scientists that will prove you are wrong.

That simple. Is very simple to come here on a forum and attack the individual and demonize him because he is as we speak the most admired American in the world.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): It is of no use to try and further research a topic when clearly the bias of the majority of the people in this thread is anti-Gore and anti-enviormental cause.

Do not confuse the two. I am pro-environmentalism, but anti-Gore.

I'm not even convinced that Gore is himself an environmentalist in any serious way. I think he has just latched on to the issue for political fodder.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 183): I think he has just latched on to the issue for political fodder.

I will be convinced of that too if he accepts to enter in the race. Which I think he won't.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): Because you are rich and have the wonderful conformity of your luxury automobiles you might just say that you would prefer to drive on your own rather than use the bus or train. For me I haven't much choice, the system already has made me as well as many millions of Americans dependent on individual transportation.

Do you have any idea how many people throughout the world benefit tremendously from America's ability to purchase such an immense amount of cars? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure it's extraordinary!

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): It is of no use to try and further research a topic when clearly the bias of the majority of the people in this thread is anti-Gore and anti-enviormental cause. No point in continuing to argue if obviously I would always be wrong. No? with such ignorance?

B752fanatic,
Can you please show me where anyone stated, in this thread, they are anti-enviormental?

I don't know why you have such a difficult time comprehending what so many are saying in this thread. No one has an issue with combating global warming. Just the person trying to tell us how to change our lives & sacrifice. It is so hypocritical for [Gore] to say such things, since he is by far, [using his own logic], guilty of generating far more CO2 emissions than typical Americans .

Gore buying carbon credits is BS & a cop out since he is still generating a large carbon footprint & pumping out more damaging pollution into the atmosphere than the people he is telling to change their lives. Instead of waisting money on these phony carbon credits. Gore should put his money where his mouth is, and go GREEN! But, he has yet to do so!

Only a pompous ass [Gore]-[ignorant too] would be so guilty of having such a large carbon foot & living a life style which is far more damaging to the enviorment than the little people who he is telling to change thier ways to combat global warning, then make a movie about Global Warning!

What I total idiot!

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 182): but believe me you will have hundreds if not thousands of scientists that will prove you are wrong.

And at the same time plenty who could tell us we are right.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 183): I am pro-environmentalism, but anti-Gore.

I have met more right-wingers that put their money where their mouth is in environmentalism. Perhaps that is one reason we don't like others to tell us what to do, when we have more than willingly done things and spent money to be 'green', without anyone having to tell us so.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 186): I have met more right-wingers that put their money where their mouth is in environmentalism. Perhaps that is one reason we don't like others to tell us what to do, when we have more than willingly done things and spent money to be 'green', without anyone having to tell us so.

Great point AndesSMF,


Bush went GREEN years ago!

Has Gore?   

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 182): Again, you folks are wasting your time here. Go out there and tell the world your arguments, they might be right, but believe me you will have hundreds if not thousands of scientists that will prove you are wrong. That simple. Is very simple to come here on a forum and attack the individual and demonize him because he is as we speak the most admired American in the world.

No one needs to, there are plenty of people who have been doing it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...5c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...lder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Believe a loser like Gore (no matter what is claimed, he lost 2000 election) or Dr. Gray ? A man who claims to have created the internet (Gore) or a climate scientist ? Wow, hard choice.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 182): hundreds if not thousands of scientists that will prove you are wrong.

17,000 scientists who say the Kyoto treaty is bad I think beats;

2500 expert reviewers of the IPCC report.

http://www.iceagenow.com/17000_Scientists.htm

Sounds like many scientists need to be convinced to join Al Gores' religion of man-made global warming. There has been a lively discussion in 'Global Warming or Ice Age' thread about this.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 188): No one needs to, there are plenty of people who have been doing it

Gosh, I had never heard of those people. Hopefully they will sell books and make them bestsellers, then win Oscars then win a Nobel peace prize... they have the chance don't they?

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 188): Believe a loser like Gore (no matter what is claimed, he lost 2000 election) or Dr. Gray ? A man who claims to have created the internet (Gore) or a climate scientist ? Wow, hard choice.

Well, considering that he won the popular vote, and the recount on Florida was halted by the US supreme court when it had to be decided by the FL supreme court, yes he is a loser.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 188): 17,000 scientists who say the Kyoto treaty is bad I think beats; 2500 expert reviewers of the IPCC report.

BS! thousands of scientists will prove that drinking coffee causes health hazards, as well as thousands will say it will do good on you.

The difference is that signs have shown that Global Warming has indeed changed climate worldwide. and No it is not another ice age.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 185): Can you please show me where anyone stated, in this thread, they are anti-enviormental?

Well Andes said that it was the religion of the left, and most recently CALTECH is preaching against the environmentalists, read the entire thread please.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 177): Newtonian gravity Already somewhat superseded, BTW.

Which is why I wrote "in it's area of applicability" which correlates with "excellent approximation in most cases" in your quotation.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 179): Peace is not political. Politics is indeed the antithesis of peace, as politics thrives on conflict.

Politics means the management of common interests. Not having a war going on, and having sufficient food for everyone, are common interests.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 179): Only a small part of the Republicans are right fringe.

As the original poster originally said, on the global scale the US Republican party is in the extreme right.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 179): Tom Clancy also has a vast amount of his data correct. So does Michael Chrichton. But their works are labeled fiction. Because if you take 99% truth and mix it with 1% bull&%it, you get fiction.

This does not apply to "an inconvenient truth". The 1% found unsupported is anyway in-line with the 99% that is supported.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 179): It IS in dispute. Science is not a matter for consensus.

Please see the global warming threads we've gone through on this board, starting with the one still ongoing is a good idea.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 179): Maybe one day they can prove it. I sincerely hope they do, because I suspect they might be right. but don't give me this BS that it is a proven fact

As you may know, in science it's almost impossible to "prove" anything. This does not mean that science cannot be used to guide policy since uncertainties can be taken into account.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 188): 17,000 scientists who say the Kyoto treaty is bad I think beats; 2500 expert reviewers of the IPCC report.

This argument has been dismissed on each and every global warming thread on this board, including the currently ongoing one where I addressed this just a few days ago. To bring this up in this thread as if it could be a valid argument is intellectually dishonest.

Quoting Joni (Reply 190): Politics means the management of common interests. Not having a war going on, and having sufficient food for everyone, are common interests.

A war can indeed be in the common interest, such as WWII (from the point of view of the allies, which were attacked by impirialist forces). All politics. War is a tool of politics.

Quoting Joni (Reply 190): This does not apply to "an inconvenient truth". The 1% found unsupported is anyway in-line with the 99% that is supported.

LOL! YOU say it does not apply. I say it does. And support your argument that it is 99% true. I say it is by and large misleading, and is thus worthless as any sort of objective document (the conclusion the British High Court decided), in spite of grains of truth therein. Karl Marx also had a lot of truth in his Manifesto and in Das Kapital. Doesn't mean his works were worth more than toilet paper.

Quoting Joni (Reply 190): As you may know, in science it's almost impossible to "prove" anything.

  

Scienceis based on the scientific method, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions

Such things like social science and political science are misleading, as they are not science based on any scientific method, but a very broad use of the word. What you are doing is saying that environmental science is like political science - if most people say so, it must be true. That's BS. Proper science would be so that nobody could argue the facts and observable tests before them.

Quoting Joni (Reply 190): This argument has been dismissed on each and every global warming thread on this board,

Oh, my, what an authority! The A-net Non-Av Forum had a thread, the consensus was so, therefore it must be true!

And who dismisses them, my friend? You, simply because you don't agree with what someone says? Who has no clue about what the scientific process is?

If I understand you correctly, we are supposed to greet as a hero someone who lies and cheats, but whose end intentions are good. Gore loaded his film with BS, but it was for a good cause, so we should back him up. If you want to take that point of view, be aware that there have been many precedants - Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Falwell, Swaggert, etc.. Sorry, but I'm not so forgiving, nor do I believe the purity of his motivations. I would respect Gore a lot more if he would keep to the facts (which are fairly convincing on their own, if not loaded with emotional urgency) and leaving out the BS.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23): I am glad that Al Gore was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize

That is what many people here seem to forget he is only the "co-winner". If the prize would have been a political statement he would have won it alone. He and the IPCC won the prize because they have given awareness on global warming. You can fight all day if Gore is an "attention whore" (everybody in politics is) or not or if is film is 100 % correct or not but he managed that many people in the US and elsewhere have understood that something needs to be done. If you don´t believe him god, if you think he is a hypocrat, god, too, but the results and the awareness he got for his work speak for itself.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 189): Gosh, I had never heard of those people. Hopefully they will sell books and make them bestsellers, then win Oscars then win a Nobel peace prize... they have the chance don't they?

Shows how open some minds are in here. Dr. Gray, the hurricane expert, never heard of him huh ? What a open mind. He has been known as the authority on predicting hurricanes, he has missed the count of tropical systems on the high side the last 2 years, and everybody missed the record year of 2005 count. So no, selling books,winning oscars and a Peace prize does not make you an expert.
                    

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 189): Well, considering that he won the popular vote, and the recount on Florida was halted by the US supreme court when it had to be decided by the FL supreme court, yes he is a loser.

Some people still have no idea what happened in Florida to this day, Gore sued to overturn Floridas' vote. Well after the election major newspapers, which many say are left-leaning, recounted the votes. In every way they counted, Gore lost. Except for one, that was to allow votes for Gore but then disallow votes for Bush with the same look of hanging or indented chads. Florida and the national election was called for Gore early, and many conservatives did not stick around to vote in Florida and the nation. In 2004 many conservatives said they would vote no matter what.

2000 popular vote- http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

2004 popular vote- http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html

Almost 12,000,000 more people voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 189): BS! thousands of scientists will prove that drinking coffee causes health hazards, as well as thousands will say it will do good on you. The difference is that signs have shown that Global Warming has indeed changed climate worldwide. and No it is not another ice age.

So, I can ignore everybody who claims there is 'man-made global warming' going on with this same argument. Great. Russian scientists are betting German scientists that another mini-Ice Age is on the way. They have open minds. This scientist says Antartic ice is growing, 90 % of all glaciers are growing, but we only hear about the melting ones. Much of Earths' history has been with ICE FREE polar caps. So which group of scientists do we throw out with this argument, the ones that support or are against ?

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 189): Well Andes said that it was the religion of the left, and most recently CALTECH is preaching against the environmentalists, read the entire thread please.

Religion of the left-leaning socialist enviromentalists ? Those are the ones ignoring everything else and seem to have closed minds about 'man-made global warming'.

Quoting Joni (Reply 190): This argument has been dismissed on each and every global warming thread on this board, including the currently ongoing one where I addressed this just a few days ago. To bring this up in this thread as if it could be a valid argument is intellectually dishonest.

Just because a a.netter decides it is dismissed does not make the facts go away, and again the 17,000+ scientists who were against the Kyoto Treaty have not signed another petition saying they have changed their minds, proof of this was asked for, and the casual dismissers could not come up with it to this day. It has not been dismissed by anything credible.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 191): A war can indeed be in the common interest, such as WWII (from the point of view of the allies, which were attacked by impirialist forces).

Ok, we seem to be agreeing on the meaning of "politics" then, and that war and peace can (and are) political concepts.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 191): Scienceis based on the scientific method, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions

In natural sciences, it isn't normally possible to "prove" things in the sense that things are proved in mathematics. There are competing explanations, models and theories and experiments are used to discriminate among them to find the ones that fit nature best. This process doesn't prove that the model is correct, it's just the favoured one and very likely completely usable in it's area of applicability. Thus your request that people "prove" that global warming is mostly man-made isn't in-line with how science is normally done.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 191): And support your argument that it is 99% true.

The British court (which, of course, isn't an ultimate arbiter of climatology) only found 13 flaws in the film, which is apparently loaded with material.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 193): Just because a a.netter decides it is dismissed does not make the facts go away

IIRC, in the current global warming thread you have not produced even an attempt to dispute what I said concerning the "Oregon petition", therefore it remains dismissed and it would require substantial effort on your part to restore the credibility of this fraudulent petition. In fact, the "Oregon petition" should be the target of our collective anger for wilfully misrepresenting information and not Gore's film.

Quoting Joni (Reply 194): IIRC, in the current global warming thread you have not produced even an attempt to dispute what I said concerning the "Oregon petition", therefore it remains dismissed and it would require substantial effort on your part to restore the credibility of this fraudulent petition. In fact, the "Oregon petition" should be the target of our collective anger for wilfully misrepresenting information and not Gore's film.

The attempt was made, someone just ignores and closes their mind. The 17,000+ scientists reaffirmed their signing of the petition in 2001, after they had signed it in 1998. It doesn't remain dismissed because a a.netter declares it so, so sorry, it still exists as a historical record with no counter.

http://www.iceagenow.com/17000_Scientists.htm

Some Canadian scientists now say as recent as April 2006;

http://www.iceagenow.com/Kyoto_Pointless.htm

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to
convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause.
Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact
still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

So excuse me if I don't believe a a.netters' dismissal of the facts.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 195): The attempt was made, someone just ignores and closes their mind. The 17,000+ scientists reaffirmed their signing of the petition in 2001,

The "Oregon petition" dates from 2001. The link you have provided just introduces the petition in a favourable light without responding to criticism raised against it. You still have not produced any evidence you've even read my criticism of the petition in the global warming thread, much less produced even an attempt at countering the points mentioned.

The second link you've produced is also from the "iceagenow" site, and lists a letter with 60 signatories. Note that the Scientific American study on signatories to the "Oregon petition" infers that there is a group of (very) roughly 200 climate researchers who would still appear agree with the petition. This letter to the Canadian PM has listed 60, so it's in-line with what SciAm concluded. Instead of 17.000 you should be citing 60. It's commendable that many of the listed names do appear to be in the field of climate studies (I didn't cross-check though) but not all of them are. What these people should be doing now is writing articles to peer-reviewed journals to point out the errors they seem to be aware of to improve existing climate models.

Interesting editorial on the nytimes today:

Quote: Temporary Victory on Clean Air Published: October 15, 2007 Last week’s record-breaking consent decree requiring American Electric Power, the nation’s largest utility, to pay $4.6 billion to clean up its act represents a satisfying, if delayed victory for the Clinton administration and other plaintiffs who brought the suit eight years ago. More than anything, though, it is a victory for millions of people downwind of the company’s plants who have been forced to breathe dirty air. But before people start jumping for joy, they should know that the Bush administration, while claiming some credit for this settlement, is still actively trying to undermine the very law on which it was based. The law in question is a key provision in the Clean Air Act called “new source review.” It says that companies that significantly upgrade a plant in order to generate more power must also install state-of-the-art controls to deal with the increased pollution. The utilities have long resented this law, which requires costly investments, and Vice President Dick Cheney targeted it for extinction in his infamous energy report in 2001. Various courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld the law. Even so, the administration has paid little attention and is still doing everything it can to torpedo the law by administrative means. The most recent assault is a proposed rule that would exempt plants from having to install new controls as long as their hourly rate of emissions does not increase as a result of any plant upgrade — even if total emissions skyrocket because the upgrades enable a plant to run longer and harder. The A.E.P. settlement stems from an enforcement action brought in 1999 by the Clinton administration and nine state attorneys general, including New York’s Eliot Spitzer, against A.E.P. and six other utilities in the Midwest and South. The case was joined by 13 advocacy groups. Under the settlement, the company, which bitterly resisted the original suit, has agreed to install $4.6 billion in new pollution-control measures at 16 existing plants. The investments will sharply reduce the company’s emissions of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, and nitrogen oxide, which contributes to urban smog. A.E.P. can well afford the settlement, which gives the company a generous time frame in which to meet its responsibilities. Indeed, the company had already committed much of the money in anticipation of the settlement as well as investments that will be required under other clean air laws. The agreement also includes a covenant that effectively shields the company from further government action while it installs the new controls. Some environmental groups warn that this covenant, which the Clinton administration inserted in similar agreements, only creates more room for mischief-making by the company. But far more worrisome are the proposed changes to the underlying new source review provision. These changes would have made it almost impossible to bring the case against A.E.P. in the first place, much less win it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15mon2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): Not at all, you apparently take pleasure and amuse yourself putting words on peoples mouths in order to humiliate them, I am afraid I will not fall on your trap.

I don't have to set any trap since your own words convict you.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 164): So I suposse he was of the lucky "millions" who never saw action because he was on the National Guard which was considered at that time the best place to "avoid" war.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 167): That was my point, he did avoid combat,

So according to your own words, all of those that served honorably did so with one purpose in mind, to avoid combat. I suppose you think the same of anyone who served in the regular military yet did not have to serve in Vietnam.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): said exactly that your war hero is a coward, and he admitted to it in a quote you also gave validity.

You mean this quote I presume,

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 164): "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." George W Bush

There is no mention or insinuation of being a coward there, in fact it is the reverse. A coward would have chosen the self inflicted wound as way to get a deferment, a coward would also have chosen to run to Canada as many did. The fact is the the President decided to invest the time in learning how to fly jet fighter aircraft. A standard draftee could expect to serve two years. By volunteering to learn how to fly what was at the time an advanced fighter aircraft the President committed to 6 years of service. That is not the mark of a coward.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): then said that the NG was never meant to see combat in Vietnam

Really, where, and how could anyone at that time have known that the air guard would not be called up? You're repeating badly mistaken and dis-proven talking points.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 178): would have the privilege of saying that he was in the armed forces but never needed to face real combat

Again, you are impugning not only the President but millions of men and women that served in the NG, the reserves, and the regular military that never set foot in Vietnam or saw a day of combat. I say again, you owe all of them an apology. Any other point you were trying to make got completely lost in that huge insult as well as your mistaken repetitiveness of dis-proven talking points.

Green.view
Carbon footprince

Oct 15th 2007
From Economist.com

A lesson in greening from an unlikely corner

THE words “Monaco” and “sustainable development” are not often found in the same sentence. The tiny principality, as any James Bond fan knows, is synonymous with fast cars, high rollers, and luxury yachts. The plutocrats who call it home must have some of the biggest carbon footprints on the planet.

And yet the reigning monarch, His Serene Highness Prince Albert II, will tell you that by some measures Monaco is a green place. Offshore marine parks dot its tiny coastline. It houses an oceanographic institute set up by Jacques Cousteau, a celebrated marine biologist and filmmaker. It levies a hefty environmental tax on the exhibitors at its annual yacht show. And last year, Monaco signed the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations’ treaty on climate change.

Prince Albert himself seems to be personally interested in greenery. He still treasures a poster from National Geographic magazine about the world’s environmental problems, which his parents gave him in the 1970s. He visited the same glaciers in Norway his great-grandfather had a century ago to see global warming’s effects for himself.

He has set up a foundation (named after himself, of course) to fund worthy environmental projects: it is currently defending oases in Morocco from the encroaching desert, and an Alpine bird called the bearded vulture from encroaching development. His serene nibs proudly points out that he pays for pollution-reducing projects to offset the emissions his jet-setting lifestyle produces.

Prince Albert is keen to make his subjects greener too. He talks about introducing a road-pricing system, similar to London’s, to clear some of those Mercs and Ferraris off the streets of Monte Carlo. He muses about a day when the cars racing in Monaco’s Grand Prix will run not on petrol, but on biofuels. Tackling climate change is not just an economic imperative, he says, but a moral one.

Yet it is hard to take misty-eyed idealism seriously when it comes from a pampered playboy princeling in charge of a two-bit tax haven—or so, at least, Britain’s press corps seemed to imply when Prince Albert held a press conference extolling his environmental crusade in London earlier this month.

How could Monaco claim to be addressing the world’s environmental woes, asked the left-leaning Guardian, when the extravagant lifestyle it represents lies at the root of the world’s problems? Even the Financial Times, a pillar of the business establishment, wanted to know why Monaco, instead of shilly-shallying with carbon offsets for the odd flight and yacht show, did not try to make up for all its greenhouse-gas emissions, and become the world’s first carbon-neutral country.


http://www.economist.com/world/inter.../displaystory.cfm?story_id=9971292