saving the world... one Big Mac at a time, is it then?

And hastening the onslaught of congestive heart disease...

No matter what Al Gore tells you, Russian scientists would like you to know that it's much, much worse.

The most inconvenient truth of all is that there are simply too many people on the earth vying for too few resources--actually no matter how many resources we have, we do have too many people.

As people move out of poverty--and there is every reason to believe that they are, they use more resources and this contributes to all kinds of problems, including greenhouse gasses, deforestation etc.

When I first came to Thailand, I went to a village with a friend. In the entire village there were maybe 5 motorcycles and there was only 1 vehicle--a pickup truck. In his family, no one had a car or motorcycle--now all 9 of them do and in his village there are literally hundreds of motorcycles and probably 75 autos.

Now that's one village in Thailand. Take a look at India and then China.

Also, we need to remember that there are now more overweight people in the world than there are malnourished people. Remember a few years back when we were all asked to give money to help all those starving children--well, it worked! Now, we are having to give money to send them to fat camp!

So, I will continue to do my part--it's not much, but I do what I can. Unfortunately, I won't stop driving until the price of fuel is too much for me to pay and from what I see most everyone else is about the same way. Still, I'll do what I can.

The number one factor in global warming, bar none, is the sun.

--Spee, 2007

Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.

--Ronald Reagan, 1981

The problem with liberal thinking such as Al Gore's is .....

.... that it's anything but liberal (in the sense of to liberate or make free).

Gore-think is a combination of self-appointed elitist hypocyrisy combined with socialism, taxes and big government to exert control over people and restrict their freedoms of choice. The ultimate goal is power and control for sake of power and control, as opposed to liberation and freedom, for the sake of allowing people to benefit themselves, their families, friends, business colleagues and businesses that they choose to patronize.

At it's roots, it's not much different that what Stalin did in the Soviet Union, Hitler did in Germany, and the Grand Ayatollah is doing in present day Iran. It is power and control purely for the sake of power and control.

- Stalin didn't build the Berlin wall to keep the people out. Rather he built it to keep the people in and control their freedom.

- The Saudis and Iranians don't have religious police to ensure freedom of religion. Rather, they use religious police to restrict freedom of religion to only such practices as they see fit.

- The US or any other government doesn't double, triple tax peoples' money (e.g., the various gasoline taxes) because they want to benefit citizens. Rather, they do it because they want your money so they can exercise power and control over your life.

All these issues about global warming, global cooling, etc., are no different. At it's roots, it is elitist desire to control your freedom.

Gore-think is a combination of self-appointed elitist hypocyrisy combined with socialism, taxes and big government to exert control over people and restrict their freedoms of choice. The ultimate goal is power and control for sake of power and control, as opposed to liberation and freedom, for the sake of allowing people to benefit themselves, their families, friends, business colleagues and businesses that they choose to patronize.

Oh c'mon Spee - Gore's media success is an educational & impactful attempt to gain the mass attention of folk who normally would not absorb anything similar in the mainstream bombardment of their everyday world. He gained attention and won some points - it IS an issue - GIVE HIM CREDIT!!!!

The problem with liberal thinking such as Al Gore's is .....

.... that it's anything but liberal (in the sense of to liberate or make free).

Gore-think is a combination of self-appointed elitist hypocyrisy combined with socialism, taxes and big government to exert control over people and restrict their freedoms of choice. The ultimate goal is power and control for sake of power and control, as opposed to liberation and freedom, for the sake of allowing people to benefit themselves, their families, friends, business colleagues and businesses that they choose to patronize.

At it's roots, it's not much different that what Stalin did in the Soviet Union, Hitler did in Germany, and the Grand Ayatollah is doing in present day Iran. It is power and control purely for the sake of power and control.

- Stalin didn't build the Berlin wall to keep the people out. Rather he built it to keep the people in and control their freedom.

- The Saudis and Iranians don't have religious police to ensure freedom of religion. Rather, they use religious police to restrict freedom of religion to only such practices as they see fit.

- The US or any other government doesn't double, triple tax peoples' money (e.g., the various gasoline taxes) because they want to benefit citizens. Rather, they do it because they want your money so they can exercise power and control over your life.

All these issues about global warming, global cooling, etc., are no different. At it's roots, it is elitist desire to control your freedom.

You want to put the blame on the so-called greenhouse gasses, look no further than the ubiquitous cow and the methane gas they emit. I'm sure all the coal-fired power plants don't help and that's why Europe is ahed of the states with nucler-powered electricity. But, the main point of the Gore's movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent. When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient...

I don't get it, are you both just anti everything, or just on a wind up?

- it IS an issue - GIVE HIM CREDIT!!!!

Sure, we'll give him credit where credit's due.

A $1,200.00 a month electricity bill for his one residence alone in Tennessee.

Credit for being a giant hypocrite...

The most inconvenient truth of all is that there are simply too many people on the earth vying for too few resources--actually no matter how many resources we have, we do have too many people.

As people move out of poverty--and there is every reason to believe that they are, they use more resources and this contributes to all kinds of problems, including greenhouse gasses, deforestation etc.

When I first came to Thailand, I went to a village with a friend. In the entire village there were maybe 5 motorcycles and there was only 1 vehicle--a pickup truck. In his family, no one had a car or motorcycle--now all 9 of them do and in his village there are literally hundreds of motorcycles and probably 75 autos.

Now that's one village in Thailand. Take a look at India and then China.

Also, we need to remember that there are now more overweight people in the world than there are malnourished people. Remember a few years back when we were all asked to give money to help all those starving children--well, it worked! Now, we are having to give money to send them to fat camp!

So, I will continue to do my part--it's not much, but I do what I can. Unfortunately, I won't stop driving until the price of fuel is too much for me to pay and from what I see most everyone else is about the same way. Still, I'll do what I can.

Now this guy knows what he is talking about.

Even if only the population of China brings itself up to 1st world standards it will use up 100% more of the worlds resources.

It can't be sustained forever.

...

I don't get it, are you both just anti everything, or just on a wind up?

whenever Boon Mee has at the end of his posts... you can safely bet it is more or less a wind up.

Wise words there Grover.

LOL

Do Gore's carbon offsets payments really compensate for his big non-green power usage? In the final analysis, any reasoned objective answer would be no.

I'm more worried about India and China than how much Gore spends on batteries for his vibrator.

Got you all running scared tho eh?

What kind of SUV does your mummy drive Boon?

I'm more worried about India and China than how much Gore spends on batteries for his vibrator.

Got you all running scared tho eh?

What kind of SUV does your mummy drive Boon?

Thought we have a no-trolling rule here in TV?

That's not trolling it's a question.

You're not too good with questions though eh?

So what kind of SUV is it?

OK, boys. Who wants the first slap?

What a bunch of ar5e !

I cannot understand these right wing loonies who try to convince themselves and everyone else that 10 million+ cow farts a day and thousands of chimneys belching out CO2, H2S, etc has NO effect on our planet.

I wonder what they would say if Dubbya said it ?

I don't know but for years I was browbeat with the fact that 90% of the USA's wetlands (swamps) had been filled in and developed by evil greedy men. Wetlands act as a filter for water which passes through it. One of the other things wetlands do is belch methane gas into the earth's atmosphere. Imagine the tons of methane gas produced by swamps and imagine 90% of that source for methane was filled in with dirt. The delicate chemical balance was thrown out of whack. Thank god the cows are picking up the slack. Who knows what catastrophic planetary event they diverted. Call it dumb luck or some unconscious awareness on our part but it's fortunate we like to eat beef.

The most inconvenient truth of all is that there are simply too many people on the earth vying for too few resources--actually no matter how many resources we have, we do have too many people.

As people move out of poverty--and there is every reason to believe that they are, they use more resources and this contributes to all kinds of problems, including greenhouse gases, deforestation etc.

I agree Scott's post is a good one. The village has so many more vehicles because the standard of living worldwide is actually improving despite what the doomsayers wish.

Limiting population growth is a sure way to ease the pressure we humans exert on the earth. Yet any attempt to limit population growth are met with calls of racial discrimination and cypto-genocide by the political left ( I hope people appreciate my using a new term I learned right here at TV).

Then again what happens to a society which relies on having as many children as possible to be used as one's retirement fund? Many offspring are needed because; 1.) the chance that all will survive are not great, 2.) it help spread out the burden the parents in their old age will have on the offspring and 3.) not all offspring are guaranteed to participate in the parent's retirement. So to limit the number of offspring is to endanger a person's retirement fund.

It's necessary for a society to have sufficient offspring to meet the labor demands of the local economy. Modern economics incorporate population pyramid models to forecast the labor and resource needs of a society. Japan with it's extremely low birthrate is experiencing an inverted population pyramid which is why they finally opened their doors to immigration. The USA is experiencing the same problem but to a lesser degree. African nations on the other hand, need high birth rates to meet the projected labor demands.

It's a complex issue. I don't mind reducing my energy consumption. I just don't like the guilt trip leftist political groups tried to lay on me. Initially, global warming was all my (humans') fault. When people investigated and pushed back the pitch changed to, yes, it's a natural event but humans are contributing to it. Why should I trust complex climate models presented buy liars? If we don't question the "science" it will remain sloppy and they will continue to treat us like stupid stubborn domesticated beasts.

Knowingly accepting lies because you have been told it's for your own good breeds contempt for you on the part of the liars. You'll be treated with less and less respect and you'll be pushed aside in the name of expediency

Go, aughie! I agree and wish the public debate centered on the morality and reasonableness of consuming less resources rather than consuming less resources to achieve some specific result (which is highly debateable. Remember these are some of the same "scientists who said we were running out of oil in the 1970's). Otherwise, we'll just start dropping nuclear bombs to achieve a nuclear winter and up fossil fuel consumption to achieve a warming effect. It's really dangerous, I believe to start down the path of micromanaging nature. Just use less resources because it is right to do so! Mr. Gore, can you just agree to use $500 of electricity per month as an example? Obviously, if everyone in the world used the resources Mr. Gore used we would all die very rapidly. But, at least, we can all cut down a bit.

I'm more worried about India and China than how much Gore spends on batteries for his vibrator.

Got you all running scared tho eh?

What kind of SUV does your mummy drive Boon?

China are apparently taking the whole green issue a lot more seriously than the US. The country is spending large amounts of money creating computer generated simulations of the gradual increase in population, energy consumed and the effect it will have on the overall environment.

I was sitting next to an American biologist on a flight who was working on one of the simulations - all interesting (albeit slightly scary) stuff.

The fact is when it comes to world-wide attitudes towards global warming, the current US administration is an absolute laughing stock.

A picture is worth 10,000 long winded explanations

Not being a climatologist but I do know how to read a graph. Which do you think is the big influence in global warming.

And here’s an absolutely startling report about climate change was published Wednesday in National Geographic which stated “the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun” and not by man.

National Geographic: Melting Mars Means Man-Made Global Warming a Myth Link

In the year 2007, fear of global warming is all the rage, as evidenced in the mass media. In the year 1975, fear of global cooling was all the rage, as evidenced in the mass media of the era:

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp

So within 30 or so years, the scientific expertise of the world has literally and figuratively gone from one polar opposite to the other on the subject of the imminent trend of the global climate.

Thirty or so years is almost half of one of our lives, so that might seem like a pretty significant amount of time. However, thirty or so years in the life of this planet is like a handful of sand in Karon Beach. By itself, it is so small as to be insignificant relative to the total amount.

So the fact that the current scientific experts' sentiments on global climate trends have moved from one polar opposite to another in some small snapshot of time, is meaningless in that context. They are both opinions and nothing more, because there is no statistical basis upon which to treat one or the other as having any kind of reasonable degree of certainty.

It is like saying a guy got killed in London last night, so the murder rate in London is spiraling upward. Or no one got killed in London last night so the murder rate is now almost zero. When measured in short time span of one night, the data are insignificant from which to draw any reasonable conclusion on the murder rate in London. It is just one short point in time.

It's no different with drawing conclusions on global climate trends. The sample sizes are so small and the time span so short that the data are insufficient to draw any reasonable conclusion.

It doesn't mean that people don't have a right to their own beliefs and opinions on the subject. However, inconclusive data to support one side or the other is the only "fact" in the debate that is certain to be correct.

How big is your carbon footprint?

In the year 2007, fear of global warming is all the rage, as evidenced in the mass media. In the year 1975, fear of global cooling was all the rage, as evidenced in the mass media of the era:

Yeah, and back in 1974, fear of climate cooling was all the rage.

Time article dated June 24th, 1974 has this quote: "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

In the year 2007, fear of global warming is all the rage, as evidenced in the mass media. In the year 1975, fear of global cooling was all the rage, as evidenced in the mass media of the era:

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp

So within 30 or so years, the scientific expertise of the world has literally and figuratively gone from one polar opposite to the other on the subject of the imminent trend of the global climate.

Thirty or so years is almost half of one of our lives, so that might seem like a pretty significant amount of time. However, thirty or so years in the life of this planet is like a handful of sand in Karon Beach. By itself, it is so small as to be insignificant relative to the total amount.

So, let's make the time-line a little longer.

We are still on our way out of the last ice-age, there should not be another one for some considerable time as a natural occurrence ..... man, however, can change anything he doesn't put his mind to.

Thirty or so years is almost half of one of our lives, so that might seem like a pretty significant amount of time. However, thirty or so years in the life of this planet is like a handful of sand in Karon Beach. By itself, it is so small as to be insignificant relative to the total amount.

So, let's make the time-line a little longer.

I like your timeline, although it is worth noting that our little time slice of an 80-100 year lifetime would be a miniscule point within the little sliver shown as "today." It goes to the point that man is relatively insigificant in the lifetime of this rock and the total sum of forces that act in it, on it and around it.

True, but it's no reason to poison ourselves.

Global warming or not, we need to deal with the pollution aspect of things.

It goes to the point that man is relatively insigificant in the lifetime of this rock and the total sum of forces that act in it, on it and around it.

With regards to the amount of time we have spent on this rock we are insignificant, with regards to the effect we have had on it since we have been here, we are planet killers.

Well, let's just be clear here. What Gore is saying that 1) people should restrict their energy usage and 2) pay significantly more for the energy they do use. In other words, he thinks you should use far less energy and that it should cost you far more for what you do use. To be totally blunt: He wants your energy use to be expensive and rare.