Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Pathological Liar Al Gore Afraid To Debate Global Warmng Expert.

  1. #1

    Pathological Liar Al Gore Afraid To Debate Global Warmng Expert.

    [url]http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116909379096479919-email.html[/url]


    [quote]Will Al Gore Melt?

    By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG

    January 18, 2007; Page A16
    Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

    The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

    One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.


    He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts?



    Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.[/quote]

  2. #2
    What is mutually exclusive about the earth warming ice on land moving into the sea and snow mass increasing on the coldest spot on the planet?

    What is the huge cost to the US if we all drove smaller cars, insulated our homes better and conserved our resources and used them a little more efficiently? I understand radical change is going to be very expensive but what is the excuse for less radical cost effective change?
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 01-23-2007 at 10:17 AM.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]What is mutually exclusive about the earth warming ice on land moving into the sea and snow mass increasing on the coldest spot on the planet?

    What is the huge cost to the US if we all drove smaller cars, insulated our homes better and conserved our resources and used them a little more efficiently? I understand radical change is going to be very expensive but what is the excuse for less radical cost effective change?[/QUOTE]


    Hey Winston, I can answer that....

    LESS MONEY IN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION POCKETS!

    Why conserve things when you can waste and produce more for more profit!

    This argument will not go away. The one side sticks their collective head in the sand and says human consumption has no affect, while the other side frantically insists it is completely human's fault. I lean a little closer to the former, but the later is, in my opinion, not entirely correct either.

  4. #4
    How costly is the WAR IN IRAQ?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Hey Winston, I can answer that....

    LESS MONEY IN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION POCKETS!

    [B]Why conserve things when you can waste and produce more for more profit![/B]

    This argument will not go away. The one side sticks their collective head in the sand and says human consumption has no affect, while the other side frantically insists it is completely human's fault. I lean a little closer to the former, but the later is, in my opinion, not entirely correct either.[/QUOTE]

    I don't think you can without having an inflationary spiral at some point.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]What is mutually exclusive about the earth warming ice on land moving into the sea and snow mass increasing on the coldest spot on the planet?

    What is the huge cost to the US if we all drove smaller cars, insulated our homes better and conserved our resources and used them a little more efficiently? I understand radical change is going to be very expensive but what is the excuse for less radical cost effective change?[/QUOTE]


    What's the benefit?

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]What's the benefit?[/QUOTE]


    What's the benefit? Take a look at your avatar picture of your little baby (who I presume is yours), actually do some research on the topic, then realize that over-consumption is going to give that little girl a not-so-nice place to live in the future.

    WHY WHY WHY is this so hard to figure out? If you peed into a glass half full of water, would you drink it? So why is it so hard to understand that treating the earth like a sewer MIGHT actually lead to some ramifications to the biggest contributers to the waste :eek: :confused: :huh:

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I don't think you can without having an inflationary spiral at some point.[/QUOTE]


    I also don't think you can before you cross the "point of no return" in ecological disaster. Most of these guys would say "who cares if Brazilian rainforests and delegate ecosystems are destroyed in South America. This doesn't affect me....where's my cheap coffee?"

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,982
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]...If you peed into a glass half full of water, would you drink it? So why is [B]it so hard to understand that treating the earth like a sewer MIGHT actually lead to some ramifications [/B] to the biggest contributors to the waste :eek: :confused: :huh:[/QUOTE]


    Exactly, Steve. The shrill deniers on the right are starting to sound as crazy as their left wing counterparts. I'm just happy that most of America probably sits where you and I do on the subject. Lets treat the earth like the gift that it is...a little bit of environmental conservation isn't such a bad thing.


    Let me ask the people out there who think that all of our combined car exhaust has no effect on the environment a question. Do you litter?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I'm just happy that most of America probably sits where you and I do on the subject.[/QUOTE]

    Lol. :rolleyes: "Most of America" is as ignorant as the fools Jay Leno mocks on his Man-on-the-Street-Trivia bits. "Most of America" couldn't tell you what a Green House Gas is, much less have educated informed opinions on highly complex scientific and economic issues like Climate Change/Global Warming.

    I sure as hell hope future Environmental Policy will not be based on what "Most of America" thinks. :eek:

    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Let me ask the people out there who think that all of our combined car exhaust has no effect on the environment a question. Do you litter?[/QUOTE]

    Unless you either walk, or ride a Bike everywhere you go, your lecturing on this topic simply comes accross as hypocritical tripe. If you truly believe car exaust is evil and hurts the planet, you cannot then morally drive a car, or allow anyone you know/love to drive without some conflict over the issue.

    If you do.....it's another case of "do as I say, not as I do", and you will be (rightfully) ignored.
    Last edited by Warfish; 01-23-2007 at 03:15 PM.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,982
    [QUOTE=Warfish]If you truly believe car exaust is evil and hurts the planet, you cannot then morally drive a car[/QUOTE]

    No, De-Dee-De.

    I don't believe its evil. But I'm not stupid enough to think that it has no effect whatsoever.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]What's the benefit? Take a look at your avatar picture of your little baby (who I presume is yours), actually do some research on the topic, then realize that over-consumption is going to give that little girl a not-so-nice place to live in the future.

    WHY WHY WHY is this so hard to figure out? If you peed into a glass half full of water, would you drink it? So why is it so hard to understand that treating the earth like a sewer MIGHT actually lead to some ramifications to the biggest contributers to the waste :eek: :confused: :huh:[/QUOTE]
    First of all, that's my son, not my daughter!! :confused:

    Secondly, I have done tons of research on the topic. Your pee analogy is beyond weak. Has it ever occurred to you that these potential cure might be more costly than the disease (and may not end up curing anything)? Who is treating the earth like a sewer? We're not. You seem to have a relgious zeal about this topic....

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]What's the benefit?[/QUOTE]

    Clean air, water and pristine places of recreation to enjoy and pass on to the next generation. I simply think it makes sense to enjoy modern society, but at the same time it makes sense not to be pigs about it.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 01-23-2007 at 05:05 PM.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Clean air, water and pristine places of recreation to enjoy and pass on to the next generation. I simply think it makes sense to enjoy modern society, but at the same time it makes sense not to be pigs about it.[/QUOTE]

    Our water isn't clean? Or places of recreation aren't clean? Our air isn't clean? If having water that is 95% clean is okay and ours is 98% clean, does it make sense to impose all of sorts of restrictions and costs just to make our water 98.5% clean (assuming our changes actually have that effect)? And when it's 98.5% clean, it can ALWAYS be "cleaner" so should people want additional costs to make it 98.6% clean? What is the benefit from those marginal costs? It's all well and good to hold vague opinions like saying we shouldn't be pigs, but don't act like they actually mean anything that is applicable. Things can always be "cleaner" or "better", we can always "do more" - the issue is the costs versus the benefits. Hysterical predictions of impending doom do little to shed light on the real costs and real benefits of any specific proposal.

    And who gets to enjoy modern society, only those countries that are [I]already [/I] modern? What about developing countries, who need to cheap energy to modernize - what of them? It's not nearly as simple as people think. It's quite easy for the American who posts online and has great hospitals and running, clean drinking water and cheap gas to wax poetic about how they want clean public parks...it's quite another to impose restrictions on places that are trying to modernize and bring millions out of poverty and who need cheap energy to do it. We use tons of energy to get as rich as we are and then we turn around and tell poor nations that they need to put the breaks on? What would you think about that? So, we exempt third world nations from Kyoto, even though China and Indonesia and India are all burning fossil fuels at a very rapidly increasing rate...as if the climate differentiates between emissions from rich nations versus poor ones. It's a complicated issue and yeah, I am skeptical as to just how catastrophic this warming is. If we really get tough with this stuff, the standard of living all across the globe is going to plummet.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 01-23-2007 at 05:43 PM.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]No, De-Dee-De.

    I don't believe its evil. But I'm not stupid enough to think that it has no effect whatsoever.[/QUOTE]


    Translation: I drive a Big Gas Guzzling Car or Truck or SUV.

    Gotcha. :P :D

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Our water isn't clean? Or places of recreation aren't clean? Our air isn't clean? If having water that is 95% clean is okay and ours is 98% clean, does it make sense to impose all of sorts of restrictions and costs just to make our water 98.5% clean (assuming our changes actually have that effect)? And when it's 98.5% clean, it can ALWAYS be "cleaner" so should people want additional costs to make it 98.6% clean? What is the benefit from those marginal costs? It's all well and good to hold vague opinions like saying we shouldn't be pigs, but don't act like they actually mean anything that is applicable. Things can always be "cleaner" or "better", we can always "do more" - the issue is the costs versus the benefits. Hysterical predictions of impending doom do little to shed light on the real costs and real benefits of any specific proposal.

    And who gets to enjoy modern society, only those countries that are [I]already [/I] modern? What about developing countries, who need to cheap energy to modernize - what of them? It's not nearly as simple as people think. It's quite easy for the American who posts online and has great hospitals and running, clean drinking water and cheap gas to wax poetic about how they want clean public parks...it's quite another to impose restrictions on places that are trying to modernize and bring millions out of poverty and who need cheap energy to do it. We use tons of energy to get as rich as we are and then we turn around and tell poor nations that they need to put the breaks on? What would you think about that? So, we exempt third world nations from Kyoto, even though China and Indonesia and India are all burning fossil fuels at a very rapidly increasing rate...as if the climate differentiates between emissions from rich nations versus poor ones. It's a complicated issue and yeah, I am skeptical as to just how catastrophic this warming is. If we really get tough with this stuff, the standard of living all across the globe is going to plummet.[/QUOTE]


    I think one of the shames of our consumer society is that it puts a much higher premium on possessing things and showing our wealth than saving, conserving and sharing. I think real conservative values like respect for our resources and saving in general is way undervalued in our society. I don't advocate forceing behavior through international treaty or legislation that restricts personal freedom and never said I did.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 01-23-2007 at 06:18 PM.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I think one of the shames of our consumer society is that it puts a much higher premium on possessing things and showing our wealth than saving, conserving and sharing. I think real conservative values like respect for our resources and saving in general is way undervalued in our society. I don't advocate forceing behavior through international treaty or legislation that restricts personal freedom and never said I did.[/QUOTE]


    I agree to a large extent.

  18. #18
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I think one of the shames of our consumer society is that it puts a much higher premium on possessing things and showing our wealth than saving, conserving and sharing. I think real conservative values like respect for our resources and saving in general is way undervalued in our society. I don't advocate forceing behavior through international treaty or legislation that restricts personal freedom and never said I did.[/QUOTE]

    Whatsamatta Son, ya got no motha****in' Bling?

    [IMG]http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/tla/death_of_a_dynasty/bling.jpg[/IMG]

    ;)

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]First of all, that's my son, not my daughter!! :confused:

    Secondly, I have done tons of research on the topic. Your pee analogy is beyond weak. Has it ever occurred to you that these potential cure might be more costly than the disease (and may not end up curing anything)? Who is treating the earth like a sewer? We're not. You seem to have a relgious zeal about this topic....[/QUOTE]


    I apologize...It is tough to tell a boy from a girl from an avatar. The sweater looks pink, so....

    The pee analogy was weak, but I believe I was talking to someone (like most) who know nothing about the topic.

    However, to say that "We're not," treating the earth like a sewer, meaning the United States, than I think you are sorely mistaken. I do not have time right now to post some stats, but the U.S. is one of the LARGEST consumers in the world. I believe one of the stats I am thinking of is the U.S. has seven percent of the world population, yet consumes almost half of the yearly resources. That my friend, is waste. Environmental controls are a joke (in basically all of North America), and perhaps the imaginery line that crosses our great lakes to divide borders has a magical affect in the U.S., because our drinking water is definitely not fine up here in Canada...

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]Whatsamatta Son, ya got no motha****in' Bling?

    [IMG]http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/tla/death_of_a_dynasty/bling.jpg[/IMG]

    ;)[/QUOTE]


    How exactly does this comment actually contribute to this topic?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us