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

Blood, sweat and pot noodles.

Are you involved in un-enviroNmentally industries?

Auto industry, not exactly enviromentally friendly,

but I try to 'offset my carbon footprint' by only working as little as possible and taking long holidays.

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

If a tree fell in the woods and no-one was there to see it who would know that tree had fallen,

If Spee fell flat on his face and I wasn't there to help him I might not sleep at night wondering if he had still managed to do it.

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,

Oh, b*llocks. On one side, the quantity of evidence science fact is overwhelming. On the other side, the evidence of science fiction, propaganda and and societal manipulation is overwhelming. People who have a hard time accepting this reality will always try to snuggle up to the other side by saying "let's just agree to disagree." Well, I'm sorry, but as they say in America "that dog just won't hunt."

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.

Quit thread hijacking by changing the conversation from a discussion on global warming hype to one of conservation and pollution control. Only a fool would deny there is merit to conservation, pollution control, etc., when obviously there is. Only a bigger fool would try to believe the two are linked in any way, shape or form.

Worse still, using these things to place limits on personal freedom and economic development are just plain wrong. What do you think millions of starving and disease ridden people in Africa would rather have, a little extra pollution of an electrical generating stattion and water santitation plant, or another 50 years of completely preventable suffering and hardship?

So....... Have you seen the film yet Spee?

So....... Have you seen the film yet Spee?

It'll happen faster just pasting it frame by frame in here I think.

So....... Have you seen the film yet Spee?

A better question is he have to?

Need to see another movie about the gas chambors in Germany during WW2 to know there were a bunch of folks killed there?

So....... Have you seen the film yet Spee?

A better question is he have to?

Need to see another movie about the gas chambors in Germany during WW2 to know there were a bunch of folks killed there?

Where you be without Spee, or rather where would he be without you?

So....... Have you seen the film yet Spee?

It'll happen faster just pasting it frame by frame in here I think.

This pair of comments is about as insightful as a test on the effects of a pail of water thrown on an inferno. They are about as contributory as a old delta bluesman performing for an audience of aristocratic Mozart zealots. What's the real problem that you seem to have a hard time dealing with here? That I haven't seen the entire movie yet? Or that I (and many others abundantly more well qualified) have correctly determined that the film is a work of propaganda-laden science fiction? (You don't mention the Gore hypocrisy part of the OP, so I'll take it as a given that you are in agreement with it.)

We'll take that as a "No"

There is a problem with asking everyone the see the movie before commenting on it: The liers makes money from it.

There is a problem with asking everyone the see the movie before commenting on it: The liers makes money from it.

All well and good but it's kind of silly to start a topic lambasting something you have no firsthand knowlage of. That's why you don't see Roger Ebert on TV saying;

"I never went to this film, but I'm sure it's crap"

It's one thing to throw in a comment, but he started the topic

There is a problem with asking everyone the see the movie before commenting on it: The liers makes money from it.

All well and good but it's kind of silly to start a topic lambasting something you have no firsthand knowlage of. That's why you don't see Roger Ebert on TV saying;

"I never went to this film, but I'm sure it's crap"

It's one thing to throw in a comment, but he started the topic

I'm afraid that cdnvic has a very valid point!

There is a problem with asking everyone the see the movie before commenting on it: The liers makes money from it.

All well and good but it's kind of silly to start a topic lambasting something you have no firsthand knowlage of. That's why you don't see Roger Ebert on TV saying;

"I never went to this film, but I'm sure it's crap"

It's one thing to throw in a comment, but he started the topic

I'm afraid that cdnvic has a very valid point!

Well, perhaps if he keeps his Toronto Blue Jays baseball cap on, nobody will notice?

Whoops...forgot they got sold - bummer.

On Topic: Can anyone for Al Gore's side refute what Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology had to say?

...thought not..

Well, perhaps if he keeps his Toronto Blue Jays baseball cap on, nobody will notice?

Whoops...forgot they got sold - bummer.

Wrong info again.

See what happens when you use your own brain?

Well, perhaps if he keeps his Toronto Blue Jays baseball cap on, nobody will notice?

Whoops...forgot they got sold - bummer.

Wrong info again.

See what happens when you use your own brain?

The Blue Jays still in Toronto or you lost your baseball cap?

Back on topic:

Here's an article from the Calgary Sun throwing more cold water (they have a lot of that up there) on the Global Warming controversary. An excerpt:

"Dr. Ian Clark, Prof. of Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology at the U of Ottawa, notes polar bears (which have become the poster-animal of the global warming industry) survived that sustained warm cycle and that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human activity.

What's more, prior to 1940 temperatures on Earth were rising long before industrialization took place"

Where would we be w/out Hollywood and the secular-progressives?

No point posting anything now, Boon, after loosing your credibility 'n all...

Al Gore Caught Warming Globe To Increase Box Office Profits

Fits right in to this thread.

No point posting anything now, Boon, after loosing your credibility 'n all...

I know...the shame of it all...

Talking about credibility, here's a nice little credible graph dipicting sunspot cycles and earth temps. Might make some doubters have a re-think?

I am having trouble understanding that graph Boonie, can you interpret it please?

I am having trouble understanding that graph Boonie, can you interpret it please?

Well, let's see...we've got the number of sunspot cycles in years along the left axis, the elapsed years along the bottom axis and the temperature change in Celsius along the right-hand axis.

'Bout covers it Bronc...

There is a problem with asking everyone the see the movie before commenting on it: The liers makes money from it.

All well and good but it's kind of silly to start a topic lambasting something you have no firsthand knowlage of. That's why you don't see Roger Ebert on TV saying;

"I never went to this film, but I'm sure it's crap"

It's one thing to throw in a comment, but he started the topic

I'm afraid that cdnvic has a very valid point!

Yeah, about as valid as a stack of bogus 100's in a bank audit. Ebert's a great film critic, but who really wants to take science advice from him? Vic and Robski just have a hard time dealng with facts. Their lame-o comebacks about who has or hasn't seen the entire film just accentuate the fact that they have no other argument. I don't see either one of them standing up and explaining which parts of the film have scientific merit. Why? Because there are none.

I'm afraid we've reached the point where all one can do is laugh and walk away.

Yep!

Hurrah!

Help a confused old fogey out here.

Is this thread about the climate/planet/environment or about trashing

Al Gore?

according to the Nashville Electric Service, Gore’s 20-room, eight-bathroom, mansion devoured nearly 221,000 kWh last year. In one month alone in 2006, the Gores consumed almost 23,000 kWh, burning up more electricity in August than the typical American family uses in an entire year.

He must heat his pool. He must have an electric gate. His home must be heated and cooled to optimum temperatures.

Gore is doing the people's work. Clearly when one is so selfless they are in need. His body temperature should be kept at levels which maximize his efficiency. His surroundings should maximize serentity so as to sooth his psyche. Those brief moments when he does rest then the surroundings should maximize his ability to rest. When these things are offered to Al Gore he is able to work at optimum levels on behalf of all of us.

Stop picking on Al Gore!

Gore goes greener

FORMER US vice-president Al Gore either has the courage of his convictions or the sense to realise that he must be seen to be green. Yesterday he was given permission to install 33 solar panels on the roof of his Nashville mansion, but they must be invisible to his neighbours. The star of the documentary An Inconvenient Truth already buys enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 per cent of his electricity costs. Gore's spokeswoman said he is also upgrading the furnace, windows and light switches, as well as installing new floor radiant heat and solar vents to improve the home's energy standards.

SO THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Al Gore is a very cool guy, twice talked to him personally , once at UNHQ, and at a Barnes and Noble Book Signing.

Both times I thanked him for inventing the internet.

Did he really invent the internet? I think not.

In K. Eric Drexler's book 'Engines of Creation' he says that the internet started off as a US government network that was used to relay test results, scientists were being kept in the dark as to the ultimate aim of their projects and started adding personal queries to the streams of information, networks started to develop between scientists and when the true nature of some government projects became apparent they were able to organise and protest at how they were being used, Drexler claims this is how the internet started and became an effective tool of communication.

Kim Eric Drexler (born April 25, 1955 in Oakland, California) is an American engineer best known for popularizing the potential of molecular nanotechnology (MNT), from the 1970s and 1980s. His 1991 doctoral thesis at MIT was revised and published as the book "Nanosystems Molecular Machinery Manufacturing and Computation" (1992), which received the Association of American Publishers award for Best Computer Science Book of 1992.

Source; Wikipedia

The Internet was developed by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) as a network that was resilient and able to route round any problems that it found. If there are any real 'inventors' of the internet they are Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn who defined the Internet Protocol, the system on which it all runs.