.... well what can I say?....

What you can say is start making some objective response.

Go here to post #175, watch the video and get back to me...

Boon Mee... objective response? Whats the point Boon?

Shall we talk about farting cows versus SUV's?

Where would you rather be breathing the air? Next to the interstate in sub-urban L.A. or in a field in Montana?

Junk science Boon and you know it.

I give you a rational response and I know you're not going to agree with it, because it doesn't fit your very restrictive conservative parameters and you just move the goal posts, I ask you a specific question and you just dodge it altogether, I mean you're quite funny and this forum would be a lot duller without you, but the only reason you post is to agitate, I really don't believe you buy into all the phony patriotism and unquestioning loyalty to the Republicans, but you know it gets a response out of other poeple.

Human beings, without a doubt, are destroying the enviroment we live in.

We can manage our resouces more effectivly and so sustain our existence on this planet, that is common sense.

Sir David Attenborough and Jared Diamond point this out very clearly and I think you would find it hard to discredit them,

but when Al Gore says it to bring the message into mainstream America he is lambasted and demonised in the public media.

And who are the opinion makers and 'scientist' that you reference influenced by?

The big petro-chemical and coporate companies that support the Republican party.

America needs to wake up, the rest of the world wants to deal with enviromental problems and are doing so in a rational way.

The ferocity that Gore is being attacked with is laughable and is comparable to the uproar made by a spoiled child that thinks someone is going to take its toys away. Nothing hurts more than the truth, if it really wasn't true they wouldn't be making such an effort to discredit him.

Like most things these days, the only people most Yanks are kidding are themselves.

Boon Mee... objective response? Whats the point Boon?

I give you a rational response that you're not going to agree with, because it doesn't fit your very restrictive conservative parameters and you just move the goal posts...

You've obviously not watched the video...

Yes I watched it Boon, but it's not broad outlook on the worlds enviromental problems, it is an attempt to discredit Al Gore's film.

You get all your info off right wing blogs and websites, how can that be balanced? Al Gore is trying to get the message home to the US public, it is the same message that respected experts all over the world are saying, only difference is it's Al Gore that is giving the message in the US.

I live in the UK, the government and the population have been dealing with enviromental issues for years, ditto the EU, ditto Australia, ditto Canada, ditto Japan now China wants to mange it's enviroment, the only country that doesn't want to take responsibility is the US.

I'm sorry my previous objective response wasn't worthy of a inteligent reply, so I'll make it easy for you.

Which do find most objectionable,

a. Al Gore's belief that humans are having a detrimental impact on the worlds enviroment.

b. The rest of the worlds belief that humans are having a detrimental impact on the worlds enviroment.

c. Both of the above.

d. The fact that you may have to drive an economical car, lower your power consumption and recycle your waste.

e. All of the above

Well, here's Dr Roy Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s marshal space flight center:

“The analogy I use is like my car’s not running very well, so I’m going to ignore the engine which is the sun and I’m going to ignore the transmission which is the water vapour and I’m going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

There will always be people who believe that this is the end of the world particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the UK telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic. And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic. This is hilarious. It would be hilarious actually if it weren’t so sad. … We imagine we live in an age of reason and the global warming alarm is dressed up as science but it’s not science … it’s propaganda pure & simple...

Goal posts Boon.. thats twice I've given you the objective response that you wanted, but you are incapable of returning the courtesy.

I'm not talking about the end of the world, neither is Gore, I'm talking about managing resources and waste responsibly,

The chief scientist of the UK telling people that they have to live in a breeding program in the Antartic, that is just laughable and not in the way you mean, it's obiously untrue and yet you use that as an argument, is that as rational as it gets with you?

Certainly you don't live in an age of reason, that is self evident and you should know all about propaganda Boon you're the one continualy pumping it out into ThaiVisa, I guess you've been around so long that the mods accept it, but it doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

Your kinda funny Boon, but in a very sad kind of way.

BTW Dr Roy Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s marshal space flight center: Sure NASA they're really into fuel economy and reducing emissions and they don't have any vested interest in the current US administration...

Well, try these guys on for size, ski... last week, Professor Ball who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed:

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. "Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said:

"The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said:

"Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

Sounds like some heavy-hitters are not of the same opinion as you?

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure Boon, I don't see it as a religion, nor am I in the green movement, history can show us that the present levels of consumption and mis-management of the enviroment in the US are unsustainable and the US affects the balance that the rest of the world are trying to acheive, and what are the US doing about the Kyoto protocol or domestic enviromental issues? Sticking two fingers up to the rest of the world.

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' .

"Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community."

Yep...there's some real reactionary folks out there, ski...

Right-Wing Anti-Environmentalism

by William Kevin Burke

In the last days of the 1992 presidential campaign, George Bush denounced "environmental extremists" who sought to lock up natural resources and destroy the American way of life. At the heart of this imagined green conspiracy was the "Ozone Man," Senator Al Gore Jr., author of Earth in the Balance. Bush's attack on environmentalism failed to save his candidacy, but it was a high water mark for the political influence of the "Wise Use" movement, a network of loosely allied right-wing grassroots and corporate interest groups dedicated to attacking the environmental movement and promoting unfettered resource exploitation.

New organizing opportunities and media exposure of the movement's less savory connections have caused constant splintering within the movement. At present, the best way to recognize Wise Use groups is by the policies they support. Therefore, Wise Use will be used here to describe all organizations that promote the core Wise Use agenda: removing present environmental protections and preventing future environmental reforms in order to benefit the economic interests of the organization's members or funders.

..........................

Wise Use groups are often funded by timber, mining, and chemical companies. In return, they claim, loudly, that the well-documented hole in the ozone layer doesn't exist, that carcinogenic chemicals in the air and water don't harm anyone, and that trees won't grow properly unless forests are clear-cut, with government subsidies. Wise Use proponents were buffeted by Bush's defeat and by media exposure of the movement's founders' connections to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church network (tainted by charges of cultism and theocratic neo-fascism), but the movement has quickly rebounded. In every state of the US, relentless Wise Use disinformation campaigns about the purpose and meaning of environmental laws are building a grassroots constituency. To Wise Users, environmentalists are pagans, eco-nazis, and communists who must be fought with shouts and threats.

............................

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/wiseuse.html

Professor Flannery says Australia and other developed nations must help countries such as China develop clean-coal technology in order to enable a fast phase-out of conventional coal-fired power stations.

Here we go again. First an epidemiologist, now a biologist/museum curator. Neither has any scientific expertise in climatology. Devoted environmentalist? Ok, that is what the record indicates. Steadfast conservationist? Fine. No problem. Good writer? Appears to be from the reviews. Except where is the relevance? Nowhere in any of this are there statements that the guy is a scientific expert in global climatology? Nowhere. Just more ad-infinitum hand-waving about how human generation of CO2 is out of control and wrecking the world. HOGWASH!!!

This thread is turning into a joke, China relies on coal fired power, it can't change that over night so why not develop cleaner burning coal technology? China's atmosphere is one of the most heavily poluted in the world, and a large proportion of the polution that is carried into the upper atmosphere ends up in the US, you should be happy that they want to reduce their emissions, we live in an age now that a nations pollution has a huge impact on their neighbours, so why shouldn't we try to manage our impact?

Spee have you seen the film yet? Jet your hardly doing yourself any favours aligning your views with an intellectual dwarf like Spee.

Khall keep up the good work and Boon.... well what can I say?....

Go Robski! You've got the plan, stan I guess some of these 'dwarfs' don't believe in UFO's either...

The main problem is that, apart from the fact that there is NO PROOF that global warming is man-made (and anyone that claims there to be a 'consensus' is lieing to you), is that the enviroment-organisations have been hijacked by the left.

First of all, in the last 100 years we have reduced the amount of pollution in creating a comparable unit of items with over 90%. That means that the free market and competition has already acted in a way that promotes less resource usage in manufacturing wich in turn has reduced the amount of pollution and waste being let out.

What these leftist doesn't seem to understand that even if we concede that we should do something, we must do a pro-active approache and not a defensive one. You cannot say 'oh, we are going to cut down on this amount of this and that in 5 years in these countries' and then pretend that new emerging economies aren't the one with most problems with pollution compared to manufacturing-ability or that anything will improve. What is needed then, if they where really serious, is increased founding for developing clearner and less resource-using ways of manufacturing items or creating electricity.

But the left doesn't care if we improve our technology to cope. The opposite. Apparently their major concearn is that we all go backwards in time and start to live like less developed people again.

And btw, here is an interesting link: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

The main problem is that, apart from the fact that there is NO PROOF that global warming is man-made (and anyone that claims there to be a 'consensus' is lieing to you), is that the enviroment-organisations have been hijacked by the left.

First of all, in the last 100 years we have reduced the amount of pollution in creating a comparable unit of items with over 90%. That means that the free market and competition has already acted in a way that promotes less resource usage in manufacturing wich in turn has reduced the amount of pollution and waste being let out.

What these leftist doesn't seem to understand that even if we concede that we should do something, we must do a pro-active approache and not a defensive one. You cannot say 'oh, we are going to cut down on this amount of this and that in 5 years in these countries' and then pretend that new emerging economies aren't the one with most problems with pollution compared to manufacturing-ability or that anything will improve. What is needed then, if they where really serious, is increased founding for developing clearner and less resource-using ways of manufacturing items or creating electricity.

But the left doesn't care if we improve our technology to cope. The opposite. Apparently their major concearn is that we all go backwards in time and start to live like less developed people again.

And btw, here is an interesting link: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

If the basis of your argument is that the enviromental movement has been hijacked by the left, and therefore is a subversive conspiracy, you don't really have a credible opinion to give.

The master of arguments gives his opinion and decides what opinions that are valid or true. Nice.

Btw, I'm not the only one that think so. Perhaps your should check into, well, I don't know..the story of several enviroment organisations, including Greenpeace, and the selection of founders that want nothing to do with the organisations anymore due to this fact?

No, wait, that would be gathering facts, we cannot have that...

Quite frankly, I don't believe what anybody says anymore.

Al Gore's movie was full of <deleted>, but then when I watched the "Great Global Warming Swindle", I was expecting to see Esso or Shell as sponsors at the end, but then bing!, a third of the way through, the speakers said they were not being paid by the oil and gas cos to make this film. OK. Thought it was cool the ex Greenpeace founder had his say that it was all about money now.

I continue to believe it's all about money, too.

I gave up on environmentalists when they started spiking trees so the lackey cutting a tree would die when the spike whipped out. The same wonkers that protest when I light up a smoke but who sit on a street polluted with bus and car exhaust.

Protest, protest. Go start a company so you know how difficult it is to survive, rather than just demonstration march for more benefits or money.

There are 6.5+ bil people and how many animals on earth now? That is cranking Mama's chain and she will react.

The West is sooo developed, yet all I see is people who demand and demand. Where is the kindness and compassion? 555

As me gran said, gimme gimme never gets.

I gave up on environmentalists when they started spiking trees so the lackey cutting a tree would die when the spike whipped out.

Not heard of this. Can you explain pls?

I have a question - of the major contributors to this thread - how do YOU earn a living?

Are you involved in un-enviroNmentally industries? What are your motives for contributing to this discussion... just curious!!!!

Hi, Endure. One example and there are many more; a pal works in the forestry industry and knows more. I will ask.

"One other thing happened in 1987 that was significant. A mill worker named George Alexander almost had his head taken out by a log that contained a tree spike in it. This is done with a 12 inch long nail put to a tree to deter loggers from cutting it down or to break a saw blade in a saw mill should the tree be cut, thereby shutting down the operation...BUT in 1987 tree spiking was very much embraced by Earth First! as a tactic. Earth First! was pro- sabotage and pro-monkey-wrenching which we called ecotage."

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/intervi...judi.bari.shtml

Khall, I am a writer like you. Environmentally friendly? Sure. How about kindness and compassion toward fellow beings? That counts higher in my books.

Hi, Endure. One example and there are many more; a pal works in the forestry industry and knows more. I will ask.

"One other thing happened in 1987 that was significant. A mill worker named George Alexander almost had his head taken out by a log that contained a tree spike in it. This is done with a 12 inch long nail put to a tree to deter loggers from cutting it down or to break a saw blade in a saw mill should the tree be cut, thereby shutting down the operation...BUT in 1987 tree spiking was very much embraced by Earth First! as a tactic. Earth First! was pro- sabotage and pro-monkey-wrenching which we called ecotage."

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/intervi...judi.bari.shtml

Khall, I am a writer like you. Environmentally friendly? Sure. How about kindness and compassion toward fellow beings? That counts higher in my books.

Thanks, JG. I must admit that the Brent Spar episode didn't endear Greenpeace to me.

I'm not against environmentalists, but when they commit ecosabotage, it defeats the whole point. Why hurt people out to earn a living? Google ecosabotage. But, I heard that many incidents (in the logging biz, anyway) are not reported.

Edit: sorry, see that it is called ecotage.

The main problem is that, apart from the fact that there is NO PROOF that global warming is man-made (and anyone that claims there to be a 'consensus' is lieing to you), is that the enviroment-organisations have been hijacked by the left.

First of all, in the last 100 years we have reduced the amount of pollution in creating a comparable unit of items with over 90%. That means that the free market and competition has already acted in a way that promotes less resource usage in manufacturing wich in turn has reduced the amount of pollution and waste being let out.

What these leftist doesn't seem to understand that even if we concede that we should do something, we must do a pro-active approache and not a defensive one. You cannot say 'oh, we are going to cut down on this amount of this and that in 5 years in these countries' and then pretend that new emerging economies aren't the one with most problems with pollution compared to manufacturing-ability or that anything will improve. What is needed then, if they where really serious, is increased founding for developing clearner and less resource-using ways of manufacturing items or creating electricity.

First of all, in the last 100 years we have reduced the amount of pollution in creating a comparable unit of items with over 90%. That means that the free market and competition has already acted in a way that promotes less resource usage in manufacturing wich in turn has reduced the amount of pollution and waste being let out.

And btw, here is an interesting link: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

If the basis of your argument is that the enviromental movement has been hijacked by the left, and therefore is a subversive conspiracy, you don't really have a credible opinion to give.

The master of arguments gives his opinion and decides what opinions that are valid or true. Nice.

Btw, I'm not the only one that think so. Perhaps your should check into, well, I don't know..the story of several enviroment organisations, including Greenpeace, and the selection of founders that want nothing to do with the organisations anymore due to this fact?

No, wait, that would be gathering facts, we cannot have that...

TAWP you come out with a post that acusses the 'left' of hijacking enviromentalism, that is a statement that can only be explained by you being so far right that everyone must be to the left of you.

The planet is warming up, wether that is man made or not is certainly debatable, but this debatable point has become the focus for 'non' enviromentalists to rubbish the enviromental movement, if anyone is politicising this debate it is the neo-cons in America.

Human beings are polluting the enviroment and destroying the balance of nature, the growing consumption cannot be sustained indefinately with rising population, all people are asking, including Al Gore is that the US manages its resources and waste more effectively, by throwing mud and calling enviromentalists lefties and sound practices 'junk science' the current problems we face are becoming derailed, mankind can solve problems very well, but only if we want to, the world wants the US to folllow the same kind of enviromental policies as the rest of us.

Master of arguments? Throwaway line to discredit what I am saying more like...

Quote from you; First of all, in the last 100 years we have reduced the amount of pollution in creating a comparable unit of items with over 90%. That means that the free market and competition has already acted in a way that promotes less resource usage in manufacturing wich in turn has reduced the amount of pollution and waste being let out.

A very strange statement and very deluded, in the last 100 years, so since 1907 the free market has reduced pollution by promoting less resource usage, and therefore less pollution?

Ok well from 1907 to 1945 was a period of almost continuous world war, that is certainly polluting, damaging to the enviroment, the masses of materials needed to create weapons for the period is incalculable and the need to manufacture at that time meant that enviromental standards where at the bottom of the list if at all, plus nuclear testing above and below ground, two nukes in Japan, numerous ships sunk and munitions dumped in the sea, not to mention that 99% of energy required was from coal fired power.

Since 1950 the population has doubled from 3 billion to over 6, how can that create less resource usage in a free market that has promoted mass consumption, the consumer age started there and continues today unabated, the manufacture of all these products has a percentage of waste, we buy our cheap goods from China and let them wreck their enviroment . How about the massive pollution in Russia and Eastern Europe caused by the cold war arms race, testing nuclear weapons, dumping chemicals, even the Republicans beloved world war 2 and 3 has put more radioactive material into the atmosphere than all previous nuclear explosions by using depleted uraniun munitions. Chernobyl, Bohpal, Piper Alpha, Exxon Valdez, can you see what I mean?

I'm certainly not against anyone gathering facts, but where did you get yours?

In the UK we already use resources efficiently, it is the US that has the most to lose, they can't keep using up resources indefinately, the US consumer will have to get used to limited consumption, is that leftist talk? The debate over Co2 will continue, but there is no doubt that the planet is warming and resources are becoming degraded, why not reduce carbon emissions? If it helps reduce global warming in the future then we may have saved the planet for future generations, if it doesnt help and warming is inevitable we will have a much cleaner enviroment to live in while it lasts..

Master of arguments? Throwaway line to discredit what I am saying more like...

I'm certainly not against anyone gathering facts, but where did you get yours?

You've been 'owned' for some time now, ski.

Valient effort though...

Let No One Say God Has No Sense of Humor

Global warming "awareness" trek to North Pole called off due to frostbite

Master of arguments? Throwaway line to discredit what I am saying more like...

I'm certainly not against anyone gathering facts, but where did you get yours?

You've been 'owned' for some time now, ski.

Valient effort though...

Owned? As in 'you're my Anarchist bitch now!'

Btw its valiant

I gave up on environmentalists when they started spiking trees so the lackey cutting a tree would die when the spike whipped out.

Not heard of this. Can you explain pls?

One example from some whack-job website:

http://www.omnipresence.mahost.org/ch3txt.htm

Also see Chapter 4 for examples on how to kill off-roaders to save the environment.

http://www.omnipresence.mahost.org/ch4txt.htm

This is no joke. There are many known examples of eco-whackos placing dangerous devices like these along the race course for the famous Barstow to Vegas dirt race. One specific example I remember is where the race course went underneath a railroad overpass. As the exit of the overpass, the eco-whackos had constructed a bed of spikes to impale a racer coming through there at 50-60mph.

Let's call it what it is: conspiracy to commit murder or grave bodily harm.

EDIT: Here's another about how to kill motorcyclists.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/efdm/efdm.html

I have a question - of the major contributors to this thread - how do YOU earn a living?

Don't "earn" , small money every quarter from pension contributions

in a previous life

Are you involved in un-enviroNmentally industries?

Nope , (love your creative deformation of the English Language) but

if some planet-raping conglomerate made me an offer I would consider it.

What are your motives for contributing to this discussion... just curious!!!!

Good question !

Like throwing verbal rocks at small minded vindictive bigots.

Boredome.

Neither of these motives are valid.

Thanx for asking the question.

Bye

Robski>> No, I'm not so far right that everyone else is left [sic] to me. If you had even bothered to read my posts, in this or previous threads, you would know that that isn't the case.

However, I have been directly involved with enviromentalists and animal rights-activists, since I've been one of them. However, when it became more then clear that there was a deep political agenda in the background, mostly driven on by the self-appointed leaders in each group and organisation, that wasn't only pro-enviroment (whatever that means) and anti-animal cruelty, but anti-globalisation and anti-free market, it's very clear that the movement isn't an organisation that is cutting through party-lines and represented across the board. It might have started that way, but it changed.

And you trying to deflect my piece that the production of one item of goods today uses 90% resources and amount of created pollution compared to 100 years ago with bringing up the World Wars are just amazing. Ironicly enough the World Wars pushed forward the industry in many contries, but that is besides the point. The fact still remains about the free market being able to work more effectingly due to market pressure - external 'events' that in themselfs bring some polution isn't at all relevant. Since English is your first language I'm not sure what you are going to blame this cockup on.

Your analythic ability leaves much to be desired.

TAWP

I'm not sure about analytic ability, but I may have misunderstood the position of your original post, I'm still not entirely sure.

Perhaps that is because as you say English is not your native language, my intention is not to be offensive.

I realise now that you are talking about production efficiency, and not overall production of the last hundred years.

Efficient management of resources and waste are the only way to sustain the growing human population, but all countries must be prepared to do their part, even if that means a reduction in their present levels of consumption.

But that is just the problem: Reducing consumption isn't the answer and never has been. If anything over the past 100 years shows us something is that increased consumption and economical growth lay the foundation to be able to spend R&D on improving efficiency on production and things like alternative fuel-sources.

To revert this process, create a decrease in consumption and economical growth, can and will never be the right way to go for this reason.

It's being on the defence when enviromental research and improvement of production has to be on the offense.

Ps. Someone mentioned we are 'too many people' and that we are running out of resources, food, and what not. This is ofcourse also wrong. Some areas are overpopulated, but counted on the worlds inhabital areas, we truly are not. Ds.

This could be a rational argument with two different rational opinions, quite refreshing really after slinging mud with Boon and Spee. This type of discussion usually ends up with both sides ageeing to dis-agree, I will agree though that all types of available technology should be used to reduce waste and pollution. But to make a point, Sir Richard Branson pledged 3 billion dollars over 10 years to help develop cleaner energy, The US budget is 1 billion dollars a year. This reflects the US administrations commitment to the enviroment, not much.

By decreasing consumption I am not talking about switching everything off, I mean becoming energy efficient and therefore waste efficient. Something many first world countries have been doing for a long time. Why won't the US?

Your quote;

Ps. Someone mentioned we are 'too many people' and that we are running out of resources, food, and what not. This is ofcourse also wrong. Some areas are overpopulated, but counted on the worlds inhabital areas, we truly are not. Ds.

Why is this 'of course' wrong, China wants to have first world standards for it's population, energy requirements for this alone will cause more enviromental pollution, but it does want to try and mange this. At least it does want to try. Why won't the US?