i don't dispute that global warming is occuring (in some form), i only dispute the idea that man, along with increased CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, and that it is part of a cataclysmic occurance that will continue indefinitely. I also doubt that we could or even should stop global warming by cutting our CO2 emissions....
the following article may have been posted before (and i apologize if that is the case), but i think it sums up my opinion that the science of global warming may be flawed
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
The linked article was posted by Po Monkey on page 1 of this thread, and was titled:
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
That represents my final thoughts on this matter, as I said before we'll have to agree to disagree....call me in 30 years....
Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL
-
GordonGekko
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5070
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: a blind near you
- Contact:
-
Bullreds & Greenheads
- Veteran
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:50 am
- Location: Near Ole Ross's Rez
Hammer,
You have made numerous remarks as to the Republican-controlled Senate sending a letter to President Bush imploring him to do something about global warming.
You have misrepresented this letter.
This letter was NOT sent on behalf the United States Senate, as if the majority of the Senate somehow endorsed this letter.
Further, Republicans had nothing to do with it.
As I have said before, Global Warming, as it is currently framed in the public dialogue, is nothing but pure politics.
Here is my evidence:
Senators Request Inquiry Into White House Global Warming Activities
WASHINGTON, DC, October 2, 2006 (ENS) - A group of 14 senators has called for an investigation of allegations the Bush administration has repeatedly interfered with federal scientists who have tried to publish research or speak to the media about the reality and impacts of global warming. The senators sent letters Friday to the inspector generals of NASA and the U.S. Commerce Department, which oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), requesting formal investigations into the claims.
"These activities do a disservice to the American public and are delaying a rational and comprehensive response to the very grave and real threat of global warming," the letter said. "In light of these and other troubling reports, we respectfully request that your office conduct a full and thorough investigation into the suppression of science and censorship of scientists at these government agencies."
The letter was sent by 13 Democrats and the Senate's lone Independent, James Jeffords of Vermont.
It cites a report published last week by the journal "Nature" that detailed allegations the administration blocked publication of federal research compiled by NOAA scientists that suggested global warming contributing to the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.
President George Bush's global warming policy has been frought with allegations that officials have tried to suppress information linking climate change to human emissions of greenhouse gases. (Photo courtesy White House)
The administration has strongly denied allegations that it has interfered with scientists regarding global warming. In response to last week's article by Nature, NOAA officials said the report in question was an internal document and was blocked because it took a policy position on global warming. But the senators who signed the letter are unconvinced.
"We strongly believe that research paid for with taxpayer funds should be published, disseminated and debated, rather than suppressed because it does not support the stated positions of the administration," the letter said. "Unfortunately, this recent incident seems to be only the latest in a growing list of actions taken by this administration to conceal legitimate and scientifically sound findings that do not fit the President's stated ideological preferences."
The letter notes that political appointees at NOAA apparently barred NOAA scientist and weather expert Tom Knutson from speaking to reporters last year because he has published studies that links global warming to hurricane strength.
That allegation is supported by internal agency emails, released last week by Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, that suggest political officials denied a request by CNBC for an interview with Knutson because he had projected an increase in hurricane strength due to global warming. In February, Knutson complained in an interview with the "Wall Street Journal" that he felt censored by the administration.
The letter also cites reports that NASA scientist James Hansen, a world-renowned expert on climate change, was prevented by political appointees from speaking to the media after delivering a lecture in which he concluded that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced in order to slow global warming.
In addition, it mentions an April article by the "Washington Post" that include interviews with NOAA scientists and contractors who disclosed that not only had administration officials criticized them for speaking on global warming policy, but had removed references to global warming from "their reports, news releases and conference Web sites."
NASA scientist James Hansen is one of the federal scientists who has complained of political interference from the White House. (Photo courtesy Earth Institute)
"Global warming is a serious threat to the security and health of the entire planet," said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and one of the 14 who signed the letter. "Instead of demonstrating real leadership, the Bush administration continues to wave the ideological right wing flag as they wage their war against facts, figures and reason."
The other Democratic senators who signed onto the letter are: Harry Reid of Nevada, Tom Carper of Delaware, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Barbara Boxer of California, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.
The letter adds to pressure on the administration for its global warming policy. Last month the House Government Reform Committee called on the White House to release a slew of documents related to its review and revision of public climate change documents.
The committee said it is particularly interested in the work of Phillip Cooney, the former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, made dramatic changes to official reports on climate change to downplay scientific findings on the causes and impacts of global warming. He resigned in June 2005 after media reports of his role in editing scientific reports on climate change, and took a position with oil giant Exxon-Mobil.
New allegations of political interference in climate research also were reported Monday in the "Newark Star-Ledger."
NOAA scientists at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, including Knutson, told the paper that political appointees have blocked press releases and a position paper that reviewed global warming studies.
According to scientists interviewed for the story, the releases and the position paper included research linking global warming to stronger hurricanes, as well as predictions that continued warming would increase droughts and floods.
***************
This article was gathered from the Environment News Service website. The Editor-in-Chief is a woman named Sunny Lewis and the Managing Editor is a guy named Jim Crabtree. A Google search will find that Sunny has ties to the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and that Jim Crabtree has written several articles on far-left websites. I am sure they are paragons of virtue and would never let their personal views cloud their reporting.
Just trying to be a burr in your saddle.
You have made numerous remarks as to the Republican-controlled Senate sending a letter to President Bush imploring him to do something about global warming.
You have misrepresented this letter.
This letter was NOT sent on behalf the United States Senate, as if the majority of the Senate somehow endorsed this letter.
Further, Republicans had nothing to do with it.
As I have said before, Global Warming, as it is currently framed in the public dialogue, is nothing but pure politics.
Here is my evidence:
Senators Request Inquiry Into White House Global Warming Activities
WASHINGTON, DC, October 2, 2006 (ENS) - A group of 14 senators has called for an investigation of allegations the Bush administration has repeatedly interfered with federal scientists who have tried to publish research or speak to the media about the reality and impacts of global warming. The senators sent letters Friday to the inspector generals of NASA and the U.S. Commerce Department, which oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), requesting formal investigations into the claims.
"These activities do a disservice to the American public and are delaying a rational and comprehensive response to the very grave and real threat of global warming," the letter said. "In light of these and other troubling reports, we respectfully request that your office conduct a full and thorough investigation into the suppression of science and censorship of scientists at these government agencies."
The letter was sent by 13 Democrats and the Senate's lone Independent, James Jeffords of Vermont.
It cites a report published last week by the journal "Nature" that detailed allegations the administration blocked publication of federal research compiled by NOAA scientists that suggested global warming contributing to the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.
President George Bush's global warming policy has been frought with allegations that officials have tried to suppress information linking climate change to human emissions of greenhouse gases. (Photo courtesy White House)
The administration has strongly denied allegations that it has interfered with scientists regarding global warming. In response to last week's article by Nature, NOAA officials said the report in question was an internal document and was blocked because it took a policy position on global warming. But the senators who signed the letter are unconvinced.
"We strongly believe that research paid for with taxpayer funds should be published, disseminated and debated, rather than suppressed because it does not support the stated positions of the administration," the letter said. "Unfortunately, this recent incident seems to be only the latest in a growing list of actions taken by this administration to conceal legitimate and scientifically sound findings that do not fit the President's stated ideological preferences."
The letter notes that political appointees at NOAA apparently barred NOAA scientist and weather expert Tom Knutson from speaking to reporters last year because he has published studies that links global warming to hurricane strength.
That allegation is supported by internal agency emails, released last week by Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, that suggest political officials denied a request by CNBC for an interview with Knutson because he had projected an increase in hurricane strength due to global warming. In February, Knutson complained in an interview with the "Wall Street Journal" that he felt censored by the administration.
The letter also cites reports that NASA scientist James Hansen, a world-renowned expert on climate change, was prevented by political appointees from speaking to the media after delivering a lecture in which he concluded that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced in order to slow global warming.
In addition, it mentions an April article by the "Washington Post" that include interviews with NOAA scientists and contractors who disclosed that not only had administration officials criticized them for speaking on global warming policy, but had removed references to global warming from "their reports, news releases and conference Web sites."
NASA scientist James Hansen is one of the federal scientists who has complained of political interference from the White House. (Photo courtesy Earth Institute)
"Global warming is a serious threat to the security and health of the entire planet," said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and one of the 14 who signed the letter. "Instead of demonstrating real leadership, the Bush administration continues to wave the ideological right wing flag as they wage their war against facts, figures and reason."
The other Democratic senators who signed onto the letter are: Harry Reid of Nevada, Tom Carper of Delaware, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Barbara Boxer of California, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.
The letter adds to pressure on the administration for its global warming policy. Last month the House Government Reform Committee called on the White House to release a slew of documents related to its review and revision of public climate change documents.
The committee said it is particularly interested in the work of Phillip Cooney, the former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, made dramatic changes to official reports on climate change to downplay scientific findings on the causes and impacts of global warming. He resigned in June 2005 after media reports of his role in editing scientific reports on climate change, and took a position with oil giant Exxon-Mobil.
New allegations of political interference in climate research also were reported Monday in the "Newark Star-Ledger."
NOAA scientists at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, including Knutson, told the paper that political appointees have blocked press releases and a position paper that reviewed global warming studies.
According to scientists interviewed for the story, the releases and the position paper included research linking global warming to stronger hurricanes, as well as predictions that continued warming would increase droughts and floods.
***************
This article was gathered from the Environment News Service website. The Editor-in-Chief is a woman named Sunny Lewis and the Managing Editor is a guy named Jim Crabtree. A Google search will find that Sunny has ties to the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and that Jim Crabtree has written several articles on far-left websites. I am sure they are paragons of virtue and would never let their personal views cloud their reporting.
Just trying to be a burr in your saddle.
-
bamahunter
- Veteran
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:26 am
- Location: AL
That is not the letter I am referring to BR&GH, although it does address another reality: GWB did everything possible- short of killing them- to keep scientists in his administration muzzled on the issue of GW...
The letter I am referrign to is dated June 29, 2006, on US Senate letterhead, 40 US Senators wrote GWB and implored the Administration to establish a mandatory program that would reduce GHG emissions...THe letter was signed by Republicans McCain, Chafee and Lugar among others...
The letter references studies by the US Climate Change Science Program and also references the 2005 Sense of the Senate Resolution passed by a majority of the Senate a year earlier...
For a news story on the Sense of the Senate Resolution and the other things that were happening on GW in 2005, go to:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 ... over_x.htm
For more information on GW in general, go to the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS website at http://www.ucsusa.org...
If yall are willing to go to these websites, you will learn just how far behind the science your thinking is...All of your arguments have been tested and rejected by the leading scientists on the planet and the then Republican majority Senate acknowledged this almost two years ago, yet yall persist in your argument that "humans arent causing GW"...
You are tryign to make this a liberal-conservative, Republican-Democrat, Al Gore enviro nazi commie rainbow coalition issue when in fact it is simply about reality as defined by scientific fact...For that matter, this thread has been a most interesting look into how poltiical philosophy attacks reason.
As for "getting back wtih you in 30 years", I figure Bush may be able to hold out on this issue until the end of his term but GW will be one of the central issues of the 2008 Presidential election so you shoulda said "get back with me next year".
The letter I am referrign to is dated June 29, 2006, on US Senate letterhead, 40 US Senators wrote GWB and implored the Administration to establish a mandatory program that would reduce GHG emissions...THe letter was signed by Republicans McCain, Chafee and Lugar among others...
The letter references studies by the US Climate Change Science Program and also references the 2005 Sense of the Senate Resolution passed by a majority of the Senate a year earlier...
For a news story on the Sense of the Senate Resolution and the other things that were happening on GW in 2005, go to:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 ... over_x.htm
For more information on GW in general, go to the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS website at http://www.ucsusa.org...
If yall are willing to go to these websites, you will learn just how far behind the science your thinking is...All of your arguments have been tested and rejected by the leading scientists on the planet and the then Republican majority Senate acknowledged this almost two years ago, yet yall persist in your argument that "humans arent causing GW"...
You are tryign to make this a liberal-conservative, Republican-Democrat, Al Gore enviro nazi commie rainbow coalition issue when in fact it is simply about reality as defined by scientific fact...For that matter, this thread has been a most interesting look into how poltiical philosophy attacks reason.
As for "getting back wtih you in 30 years", I figure Bush may be able to hold out on this issue until the end of his term but GW will be one of the central issues of the 2008 Presidential election so you shoulda said "get back with me next year".
-
GordonGekko
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5070
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: a blind near you
- Contact:
i meant get back to me in 30 years because, by then, you will see that all of these efforts to combat GW were in vain.... i have no doubt that the knee jerk majority will pass ill advised measures to cut CO2 emissions.... i doubt however that they will acheive the results people want them to achieve....
"In God we trust, all others pay cash."
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
Press Alt+F4 to ignore my posts
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
Press Alt+F4 to ignore my posts
i dunno bout the weather but you boys outta add a bit more fiber to your diets............might feel better 
nothing like monday morning quarterbacks offering "data" to get a good chuckle when needed as well........
gator
nothing like monday morning quarterbacks offering "data" to get a good chuckle when needed as well........
gator
HRCH Eight Gauge - Gauge (see you on the bridge buddy)
HRCH Eight Gauge's Mountain Man - Trapper
HRCH Eight Gauge's Mountain Man - Trapper
gator wrote:i dunno bout the weather but you boys outta add a bit more fiber to your diets............might feel better
nothing like monday morning quarterbacks offering "data" to get a good chuckle when needed as well........
gator
So u think if hammer has a big shat then he'll feel better about this whole global warming thing?
From Foxnews.com.
It's not easy being green. Just ask former Vice President Al Gore.
While the newly anointed Oscar winner has made what Katie Couric called a "triumphant return" to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Gore was tripped up by a simple question from Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Late into the hearing, Inhofe showed Gore a clip from his film, "An Inconvenient Truth." The clip challenged the audience with this question: "Are you ready to change the way you live?"
Simple enough. But Inhofe took this question a step further, by placing it right at the foot of the former vice president. Correctly noting that Gore is adored by hundreds of thousands for his green message, Inhofe asked the Tennessee Democrat if he'd be willing to pledge to "consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?"
It was a "gotcha" moment, and one that was not widely reported in the mainstream media. Gore refused to take the pledge, adding that, "we live a carbon-neutral life."
Get ready to hear a lot about carbon-neutral living in the days and months ahead. It's the new euphemism for Escalade-driving environmentalists who "purchase" carbon credits to assuage any guilt about their private jets and 20,000 square foot summer homes.
In fact there is a $100 million dollar bull market in such credits — and it’s growing, with for-profit companies such as TerraPass, selling credits that give wealthy Americans a "pass" when it comes to actually cutting down on their own carbon consumption. The idea is so hot that several business schools have begun programs in environmental finance.
How do these carbon offsets actually work? Well, like a charm if you're in the business of buying your way out of looking like a hypocrite. And, if you're actually sincere about protecting the environment — well, the jury's out on that one.
In theory, these carbon credits could have a positive effect on the planet, by encouraging companies to cash-in on environmentally friendly practices by "selling" their credits to gas-guzzling greenies and the like. But a recent study by Businessweek shows that, in many cases, the environmental changes that resulted in companies earning these carbon offsets were just sound business moves, and had nothing to do with being environmentally friendly. As was the case with a huge garbage dump in Arkansas — the carbon credits were just a fortunate coincidence of decisions made by its owner, Waste Management, years ago. Other schemes were just that — a lot of hot air.
Yet Gore and the other greenies seem to be sleeping well at night, content that all of this paper shuffling allows them to live in carbon neutral bliss. What power these little credits possess — conferring upon their owners the right to consume carbon with abandon, while enjoying the moral high ground to lecture to the rest of us to cut back on energy.
Could Kermit have it wrong? Maybe it is easy being green after all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Keenan is anchor of Cashin’ In and is a FOX News Channel business correspondent. Tune in to Cashin' In on Saturdays at 11:30am and find out what you need to know to make your money grow and keep what you already have!
It's not easy being green. Just ask former Vice President Al Gore.
While the newly anointed Oscar winner has made what Katie Couric called a "triumphant return" to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Gore was tripped up by a simple question from Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Late into the hearing, Inhofe showed Gore a clip from his film, "An Inconvenient Truth." The clip challenged the audience with this question: "Are you ready to change the way you live?"
Simple enough. But Inhofe took this question a step further, by placing it right at the foot of the former vice president. Correctly noting that Gore is adored by hundreds of thousands for his green message, Inhofe asked the Tennessee Democrat if he'd be willing to pledge to "consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?"
It was a "gotcha" moment, and one that was not widely reported in the mainstream media. Gore refused to take the pledge, adding that, "we live a carbon-neutral life."
Get ready to hear a lot about carbon-neutral living in the days and months ahead. It's the new euphemism for Escalade-driving environmentalists who "purchase" carbon credits to assuage any guilt about their private jets and 20,000 square foot summer homes.
In fact there is a $100 million dollar bull market in such credits — and it’s growing, with for-profit companies such as TerraPass, selling credits that give wealthy Americans a "pass" when it comes to actually cutting down on their own carbon consumption. The idea is so hot that several business schools have begun programs in environmental finance.
How do these carbon offsets actually work? Well, like a charm if you're in the business of buying your way out of looking like a hypocrite. And, if you're actually sincere about protecting the environment — well, the jury's out on that one.
In theory, these carbon credits could have a positive effect on the planet, by encouraging companies to cash-in on environmentally friendly practices by "selling" their credits to gas-guzzling greenies and the like. But a recent study by Businessweek shows that, in many cases, the environmental changes that resulted in companies earning these carbon offsets were just sound business moves, and had nothing to do with being environmentally friendly. As was the case with a huge garbage dump in Arkansas — the carbon credits were just a fortunate coincidence of decisions made by its owner, Waste Management, years ago. Other schemes were just that — a lot of hot air.
Yet Gore and the other greenies seem to be sleeping well at night, content that all of this paper shuffling allows them to live in carbon neutral bliss. What power these little credits possess — conferring upon their owners the right to consume carbon with abandon, while enjoying the moral high ground to lecture to the rest of us to cut back on energy.
Could Kermit have it wrong? Maybe it is easy being green after all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Keenan is anchor of Cashin’ In and is a FOX News Channel business correspondent. Tune in to Cashin' In on Saturdays at 11:30am and find out what you need to know to make your money grow and keep what you already have!
GEAUX TIGERS
Excellent point by Keenan but she is oblivious to it...The exact point I am making is that it doesnt matter HOW you get carbon neutral or WHY you get carbon neutral, only that you get carbon neutral...Much of the needed carbon neutrality will turn out to be GOOD BUSINESS and people will wonder why we didnt do it in the first place...
As far as the "bull market in carbon credits", it is irrelevant WHY somebody buys carbon credits, only that they buy them...If Al Gore wants to emit more CO2 than anybody in the US, it dont matter as long as he offsets those emissions with credit purchases...
This is exactly my point...We have got to get the emotion/politics out of this and deal with the science and do it in a market based approach which has worked beautifully for SOx and NOx...Just like there will be for carbon credits, there are already markets for these pollutants...
But not how Keenan went political/emotional about "protecting the environment" as though she has the right to question anybody's motives for doing something...
MEMO TO THE WORLD: WHY someone does somethign is none of your concern...You can only assess folks based on what they DO. The more you focus on WHY, the more vulnerable you are to miss the forest for the trees.
As far as the "bull market in carbon credits", it is irrelevant WHY somebody buys carbon credits, only that they buy them...If Al Gore wants to emit more CO2 than anybody in the US, it dont matter as long as he offsets those emissions with credit purchases...
This is exactly my point...We have got to get the emotion/politics out of this and deal with the science and do it in a market based approach which has worked beautifully for SOx and NOx...Just like there will be for carbon credits, there are already markets for these pollutants...
But not how Keenan went political/emotional about "protecting the environment" as though she has the right to question anybody's motives for doing something...
MEMO TO THE WORLD: WHY someone does somethign is none of your concern...You can only assess folks based on what they DO. The more you focus on WHY, the more vulnerable you are to miss the forest for the trees.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
If the carbon credits are based upon set carbon limits that are higher than current emission rates, then the companies are really NOT reducing carbon emissions. So, how exactly will this help the environment?
Unless companies are agreeing to reduce their emissions BELOW current emissions, then we will not reduce emissions with carbon credits. At best, the emissions will be capped under this system. But, if my understanding of the "crisis" is correct, we need to actually reduce current levels of CO2 emissions, not simply set a level far above current emissions and agree not to exceed it.
That would be like a smoker who smokes one pack a day, and is trying to quit, saying: I agree to not exceed two packs a day. Is that smoker better off due to the agreement. Has anything really been accomplished?
You can feel good all you want by buying these "credits". But, if you are not willing yourself to reduce your emissions, then you are part of the problem IMO --- if we assume this GW "crisis" to be real. Someone has to actually reduce their emissions in order to reduce emissions. Basic logic. I don't have to be a scientist to make this statement.
And exactly who is going to enforce the credit system? What if company "X" exceeds the agreed upon CO2 limit upon which the credits were based? Is it a "citizens arrest" by Barney Fife, or will we have carbon credit police?
I smell the strong stench of a scam.
IMO, Al Gore is full of schit!!! Typical "do as I say, not as I do". One cannot effectively lead, if not by example. Moreover, as I understand it, Al Gore stands to benefit financially from the carbon credit trade due to a company that he has an ownership interest in. Is anyone really shocked by this revelation?
Unless companies are agreeing to reduce their emissions BELOW current emissions, then we will not reduce emissions with carbon credits. At best, the emissions will be capped under this system. But, if my understanding of the "crisis" is correct, we need to actually reduce current levels of CO2 emissions, not simply set a level far above current emissions and agree not to exceed it.
That would be like a smoker who smokes one pack a day, and is trying to quit, saying: I agree to not exceed two packs a day. Is that smoker better off due to the agreement. Has anything really been accomplished?
You can feel good all you want by buying these "credits". But, if you are not willing yourself to reduce your emissions, then you are part of the problem IMO --- if we assume this GW "crisis" to be real. Someone has to actually reduce their emissions in order to reduce emissions. Basic logic. I don't have to be a scientist to make this statement.
And exactly who is going to enforce the credit system? What if company "X" exceeds the agreed upon CO2 limit upon which the credits were based? Is it a "citizens arrest" by Barney Fife, or will we have carbon credit police?
I smell the strong stench of a scam.
IMO, Al Gore is full of schit!!! Typical "do as I say, not as I do". One cannot effectively lead, if not by example. Moreover, as I understand it, Al Gore stands to benefit financially from the carbon credit trade due to a company that he has an ownership interest in. Is anyone really shocked by this revelation?
Last edited by Po Monkey Lounger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You got the wrong analogy PML...The correct analogy is a smoker who smokes two packs a day and cuts back to 39, then 38, etc...The bottomline is the net reduction in carbon emissions...
But what really perplexes me about your post is that why would someone who denies the problem be concerned about the flaws in the proposed fixes? You are like the guy who has cancer in his lungs, brain and liver saying, if you cant get it all the first time, in one fell swoop, dont bother...Wouldnt you be better off dealing with soem of the cancer even if you couldnt get all of it?
Why is this always about Al Gore? I could care less about that smug, rich, political SOB...But if he emits 5000 tons of CO2 per year and he offsets those emissions by planting trees, buying methane credits from the local landfill, paying a farmer to farm no till instead of conventional till, etc, then the net result is that he is carbon neutral...
No system is perfect...Take the stock market for example...But it beats the hell out of CDs and passbook savings...Using your logic, you might as well quit duck hunting since you are bound to miss a duck every once awhile...I mean- why do anythign if you are not perfect at it?
This is about pollution...Just like it was in the early 1970s when a Republican President led the Congress to pass teh Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act...Since then the big money has entrenched and come up with all sort of BS about the people- many of them scientists- whose job and passion it is to tell us about environmental problems- and the politicians that try to promote better public policy thru science...
Why shouldnt Gore make money off his expertise? More power to him as long as he doenst break the law in the process...For God Sakes Man, we got a Governor of Mississippi with financial interest in a lobbying firm with tobacco contracts that is singlehandedly preventing a major cigarette tax icrease and you are worried about a private citizen who is in no way a government official, making money from a legal business?
SOx and NOx credits are traded everyday on the CBOT...Air quality is dramatically better as a result...Where is the scam?
But what really perplexes me about your post is that why would someone who denies the problem be concerned about the flaws in the proposed fixes? You are like the guy who has cancer in his lungs, brain and liver saying, if you cant get it all the first time, in one fell swoop, dont bother...Wouldnt you be better off dealing with soem of the cancer even if you couldnt get all of it?
Why is this always about Al Gore? I could care less about that smug, rich, political SOB...But if he emits 5000 tons of CO2 per year and he offsets those emissions by planting trees, buying methane credits from the local landfill, paying a farmer to farm no till instead of conventional till, etc, then the net result is that he is carbon neutral...
No system is perfect...Take the stock market for example...But it beats the hell out of CDs and passbook savings...Using your logic, you might as well quit duck hunting since you are bound to miss a duck every once awhile...I mean- why do anythign if you are not perfect at it?
This is about pollution...Just like it was in the early 1970s when a Republican President led the Congress to pass teh Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act...Since then the big money has entrenched and come up with all sort of BS about the people- many of them scientists- whose job and passion it is to tell us about environmental problems- and the politicians that try to promote better public policy thru science...
Why shouldnt Gore make money off his expertise? More power to him as long as he doenst break the law in the process...For God Sakes Man, we got a Governor of Mississippi with financial interest in a lobbying firm with tobacco contracts that is singlehandedly preventing a major cigarette tax icrease and you are worried about a private citizen who is in no way a government official, making money from a legal business?
SOx and NOx credits are traded everyday on the CBOT...Air quality is dramatically better as a result...Where is the scam?
micah, i know we don't "know" each other, but i'm gonna toss you a bone here.
get these suckers a chicken little forum.......think of the revenues from greenpeace adn the like...............think of how it would for your crew RIGHT HERE at MSDUCKS to single-handedly thwart the evil ways of geedub.
al whore could be a sponsor and guest "typer".
there's pay per view stuff here micah..............listen to me man.
here to help, helpy helperson
get these suckers a chicken little forum.......think of the revenues from greenpeace adn the like...............think of how it would for your crew RIGHT HERE at MSDUCKS to single-handedly thwart the evil ways of geedub.
al whore could be a sponsor and guest "typer".
there's pay per view stuff here micah..............listen to me man.
here to help, helpy helperson
HRCH Eight Gauge - Gauge (see you on the bridge buddy)
HRCH Eight Gauge's Mountain Man - Trapper
HRCH Eight Gauge's Mountain Man - Trapper
-
Bullreds & Greenheads
- Veteran
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:50 am
- Location: Near Ole Ross's Rez
Hammer,
What happens to those of us who, either out of ignorance (in your opinion), lack of finances, or the good old-fashioned choice of freedom, decide not to buy "carbon-credits"?
Do we have to wear some kind of insignia, kind of like a Star of David or something, on our clothing?
Will we have to offset our evil carbon-dioxide emitting ways by working at special camps with "Arbeit macht frei" over the doorways?
Or will there be a final solution for some of us evil carbon emitters, a little "shower stop" along the Green Party freeway?
This enviro-crap you've bought into is the road to totalitarianism.
What happens to those of us who, either out of ignorance (in your opinion), lack of finances, or the good old-fashioned choice of freedom, decide not to buy "carbon-credits"?
Do we have to wear some kind of insignia, kind of like a Star of David or something, on our clothing?
Will we have to offset our evil carbon-dioxide emitting ways by working at special camps with "Arbeit macht frei" over the doorways?
Or will there be a final solution for some of us evil carbon emitters, a little "shower stop" along the Green Party freeway?
This enviro-crap you've bought into is the road to totalitarianism.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
"get these suckers a chicken little forum......."
Gator, whatever do you mean?
Gator, whatever do you mean?
Last edited by Po Monkey Lounger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests