Al Gore more dangerous than global warming

[avatar4321]

CEO With a Spine (http://www.nysun.com/article/51681?page_no=2)


The New York Coal Trade Association, headquartered in New York City, recently held its 94th annual banquet and meeting at the New York Hilton. One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy. In his speech, he dared to say that he regards Al Gore as the shaman of global doom and gloom. He is not joking when he says, "He is more dangerous than his global warming."

Unlike many heads of corporations who are taking their companies on that long green mile and caving in to the demands of environmental militants, Mr. Murray is fighting tooth and nail for what he says is, "the little guy that nobody cares about."

"Some wealthy elitists in our country," he told the audience, "who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived ‘global goofiness' campaigns."

Mr. Murray was a coal miner in Ohio who survived two mining accidents and built funds from a mortgaged house into a private coal mining company with more than 3,000 employees. He expresses concern about the proposals in Congress that will ration the use of coal, warning of much worse adverse consequences to Americans than those experienced after the 1990 amendment of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Murray told me that he had seen the effect of the drastic reductions in coal production, and the wrenching impact on hundreds of communities, as a result of that legislation. In Ohio alone, from 1990 to 2005, about 118 mines were shut down, costing more than 36,000 primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have spent years recovering, and some never will. He spoke of the families that broke up, many lost homes, and some were impoverished, because of legislation that the environmentalists call a "success."

"I don't need a computer graphic like in Gore's movie, to learn about this havoc," he told me, "I lived it and saw it firsthand."

To Mr. Murray, so-called "global warming" is a human issue, not just an environmental one. In his speech, Murray said, "The unfolding debate over atmospheric warming in the Congress, the news media, and by the pundits has been skewed and totally one-sided, in that they have been preoccupied, speculative environmental disasters of climate change."

Mr. Murray told me that the Democrats had tried to stop his scheduled testimony on March 20 before the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, titled "Toward a Clean Energy Future: Energy Policy and Climate Change on Public Lands." But after Mr. Murray was interviewed by Bloomberg News and by the Wall Street Journal, they relented. The chairman refused to hear his testimony and left Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat of Rhode Island, in charge.

In his testimony, Mr. Murray explained: " America is dependent on our coal because it is abundant, with some of our best deposits located on public lands; it is affordable; and it is critical to our energy security to protect all Americans from the hostile and unstable governments from which much of our country's energy is currently imported."

Right now about 52% of the country's electricity is generated by coal. In the coastal cities we tend to forget about that because we get most of our electricity from oil, natural gas, and nuclear power plants. But the farms that grow our food and many other industries around the country can't afford these more expensive sources of energy. Manufacturers will outsource jobs to foreign countries that will not subscribe to emission caps and controls. China is building 50 new coal-fired power plants, and Beijing has stated it will not agree to mandatory emission constraints in the post-2012 Kyoto treaty. Why are we being so stupid about this issue?

The irony is that these caps and controls will do little to affect climate. Timothy Ball, a renowned environmental consultant, testified before the committee that global warming is more likely to be caused by sun spots rather than human activity. Mr. Murray's passion for saving the "little guy" is truly admirable. Too bad that fervor is completely absent in Congress.

[Gaffer]

Interesting the libs try to stop him from testifying and then the head of the commitee walks out. Doesn't want to hear what the man has to say. Tells me a lot right there.

[theHawk]

Manufacturers will outsource jobs to foreign countries that will not subscribe to emission caps and controls. China is building 50 new coal-fired power plants, and Beijing has stated it will not agree to mandatory emission constraints in the post-2012 Kyoto treaty. Why are we being so stupid about this issue?

This is exactly what I have been saying about all these stupid environmental laws all along. What is the point of holding our companies to these high and strict standards when we allow foreign companies to import the same product. Foreign companies that in most cases do not have the same strict environmental standards we hold ourselves to.

I'm all for strict environmental standards, but it sort of defeats the purpose when we simply open the door for these others countries to do this. It drives our businesses out of business, and rewards the foreign companies for not following environmental standards. Add on top of that the employment laws our country's companies are forced to follow which many foreign countries do not abid by, our companies really have no chance at lasting very long.

It would be nice to have a President and a Congress that has the balls to stand up for the American people for once, and force all the environmental and employment standards we set for ourselves on all the products we import. Taxation of these imported goods and services is needed to equal the playing field.

[GW in Ohio]

This is exactly what I have been saying about all these stupid environmental laws all along. What is the point of holding our companies to these high and strict standards when we allow foreign companies to import the same product. Foreign companies that in most cases do not have the same strict environmental standards we hold ourselves to.

I'm all for strict environmental standards, but it sort of defeats the purpose when we simply open the door for these others countries to do this. It drives our businesses out of business, and rewards the foreign companies for not following environmental standards. Add on top of that the employment laws our country's companies are forced to follow which many foreign countries do not abid by, our companies really have no chance at lasting very long.

It would be nice to have a President and a Congress that has the balls to stand up for the American people for once, and force all the environmental and employment standards we set for ourselves on all the products we import. Taxation of these imported goods and services is needed to equal the playing field.

We don't just throw up our hands and say we're not gonna do anything about it because other countries aren't doing anything about it. This is what Bush has done for 6 years and will continue to do until he's out of office.

What we do is elect a president with courage and integrity and leadership...a president who will take the lead and use the economic power of the United States to compel other nations like China and Russia to start curbing their greenhouse gases.

Where can we find such a president of courage, integrity and leadership ability? Two words:

Al Gore

Want another?

Dennis Kucinich

A third?

John Edwards

Now, I know that you right-wing wackos would rather cut off some of your fingers than vote for any of those three, but I thought I'd just throw that in your faces.



:salute: :dance: :salute:

[theHawk]

We don't just throw up our hands and say we're not gonna do anything about it because other countries aren't doing anything about it. This is what Bush has done for 6 years and will continue to do until he's out of office.
Its what every President has done, which is why I just said we need to elect a Pres & Congress with the balls to do what none previously have done before.



What we do is elect a president with courage and integrity and leadership...a president who will take the lead and use the economic power of the United States to compel other nations like China and Russia to start curbing their greenhouse gases.

And how are we supposed to use our "economic power" to force all these other nations to curb their emissions? It sounds like you are saying the same exact thing I am, but you aren't saying how it should be done. Using all these feel-good blanket statements is nice, but I'd like to hear some details on how it will actually be done.

[Gaffer]

We don't just throw up our hands and say we're not gonna do anything about it because other countries aren't doing anything about it. This is what Bush has done for 6 years and will continue to do until he's out of office.

What we do is elect a president with courage and integrity and leadership...a president who will take the lead and use the economic power of the United States to compel other nations like China and Russia to start curbing their greenhouse gases.

Where can we find such a president of courage, integrity and leadership ability? Two words:

Al Gore

The high priest of green

Want another?

Dennis Kucinich

baffoon

A third?

John Edwards

smooth talking shister

Now, I know that you right-wing wackos would rather cut off some of your fingers than vote for any of those three, but I thought I'd just throw that in your faces.



:salute: :dance: :salute:

And to think I was actually starting to believe you had some sense. You want to put the three biggest weenies in the liberal party in office? I don't want to see anyone of those fools anywhere near being elected.

Larry

Moe

Curly

[avatar4321]

We don't just throw up our hands and say we're not gonna do anything about it because other countries aren't doing anything about it. This is what Bush has done for 6 years and will continue to do until he's out of office.

What we do is elect a president with courage and integrity and leadership...a president who will take the lead and use the economic power of the United States to compel other nations like China and Russia to start curbing their greenhouse gases.

Where can we find such a president of courage, integrity and leadership ability? Two words:

Al Gore

Want another?

Dennis Kucinich

A third?

John Edwards

Now, I know that you right-wing wackos would rather cut off some of your fingers than vote for any of those three, but I thought I'd just throw that in your faces.



:salute: :dance: :salute:

Maybe we just need a leader who has the honesty to point out that the problem with so called greenhouse gases is a bunch of bull and stop trying to destroy our economy to please a bunch of socialist wackos trying to use the environment as a religion to shove their failed viewpoints down on the people.

[stephanie]

Maybe we just need a leader who has the honesty to point out that the problem with so called greenhouse gases is a bunch of bull and stop trying to destroy our economy to please a bunch of socialist wackos trying to use the environment as a religion to shove their failed viewpoints down on the people.

The problem is...There are a lot of useful idiots falling for it...So their going to continue trying...

We just have to push back and educate, and hope it works..

[darin]

The REAL cause..

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

[GW in Ohio]

Its what every President has done, which is why I just said we need to elect a Pres & Congress with the balls to do what none previously have done before.


And how are we supposed to use our "economic power" to force all these other nations to curb their emissions? It sounds like you are saying the same exact thing I am, but you aren't saying how it should be done. Using all these feel-good blanket statements is nice, but I'd like to hear some details on how it will actually be done.

The American president has enormous economic clout in the world community. We do business with every major country, including China and Russia. An American president who was committed to saving our environment could force China and Russia to adhere to emissions standards in exchange for favorable trade agreements.

[GW in Ohio]

Some of you guys think George Bush has guts and integrity. It didn't take any guts or integrity to invade Iraq. That only required incredible hubris and a peculiarly American arrogant mindset that thinks we are entitled to overthrow and set up governments elsewhere in the world.

And it doesn't require fortitude to "stay the course" in Iraq; it only requires an inability to admit that you fucked up.

If you want to see guts and integrity in an American president, elect someone who will actually tackle the problem of global warming, in the face of the right-wing wackos who claim global warming is a hoax.

[theHawk]

....adhere to emissions standards in exchange for favorable trade agreements.

In other words give them tax breaks if they adhere to emissions standards, or tax them if they don't. Which is exactly what I said.

[GW in Ohio]

In other words give them tax breaks if they adhere to emissions standards, or tax them if they don't. Which is exactly what I said.

Then we're in agreement.

Actually, the next American president, no matter who it is....Hillary, Romney, Rudy....even McCain.....is going to have to address the problem of global warming. The difference between them will be how vigorously they address the problem. I would expect McCain to make the least strenuous efforts and Gore to make the most strenuous efforts, which is why Big Al is my #1 choice for prez.

[Dilloduck]

Then we're in agreement.

Actually, the next American president, no matter who it is....Hillary, Romney, Rudy....even McCain.....is going to have to address the problem of global warming. The difference between them will be how vigorously they address the problem. I would expect McCain to make the least strenuous efforts and Gore to make the most strenuous efforts, which is why Big Al is my #1 choice for prez.

So you've bought into the hysteria hook line and sinker huh?

[MtnBiker]

and Gore to make the most strenuous efforts, which is why Big Al is my #1 choice for prez.

So global warming is your top priority in a presidential canidate?

[GW in Ohio]

So global warming is your top priority in a presidential canidate?

Yes, but if a candidate doesn't have the rest of the presidential and leadership package, and if I disagree with him on everything else, I'm probably not going to support him.

Gore, Edwards and Kucinich all meet my litmus tests for a president. I'd support any of them.

[Dilloduck]

Yes, but if a candidate doesn't have the rest of the presidential and leadership package, and if I disagree with him on everything else, I'm probably not going to support him.

Gore, Edwards and Kucinich all meet my litmus tests for a president. I'd support any of them.

We've got Muslim terrorists ready to destroy as much of America as they can and your priority is to try to cool the planet ? Amazing.

[Gaffer]

Yes, but if a candidate doesn't have the rest of the presidential and leadership package, and if I disagree with him on everything else, I'm probably not going to support him.

Gore, Edwards and Kucinich all meet my litmus tests for a president. I'd support any of them.

What's scary is knowing that people like you vote. Larry Moe and Curly meet your litmus test.

[Kathianne]

Yes, but if a candidate doesn't have the rest of the presidential and leadership package, and if I disagree with him on everything else, I'm probably not going to support him.

Gore, Edwards and Kucinich all meet my litmus tests for a president. I'd support any of them.

and there is the difference. I could vote for Guiliani, maybe Romney.None of the others so far, including Gingrich.

The dmes see no difference between a Edwards and Kuchinich.

[avatar4321]

We've got Muslim terrorists ready to destroy as much of America as they can and your priority is to try to cool the planet ? Amazing.

Especially since the tempature hasnt gone up at all in the last 9 years.

[stephanie]

Gw...You really should read up on global warming, everything from both sides..

Then think about what all the regulations, taxes, restrictions that will be put on you...And think of what it will do to our economy...

This is not about global warming..

This is about POWER
CONTROL....

This is about SOCIALISM...

Is that how you want to live??

Think about it, is all I ask

[Dilloduck]

The math was done years ago---The world is OVER-POPULATED. How in the hell can all these people help but cause some kind of climate change? I don't care how you try to slice it. We have X amount of resources and the number of people continues to balloon.
If we are worried about human caused climate change we have to eventually decide the maximum human capacity of the Earth. War, famine and disease can't be continually relied upon for population control.
Policies like the Kyoto Treaty are mere band-aids and serve only to distract from the huge moral and ethical challenge of population management.

[Nuc]

The math was done years ago---The world is OVER-POPULATED. How in the hell can all these people help but cause some kind of climate change? I don't care how you try to slice it. We have X amount of resources and the number of people continues to balloon.
If we are worried about human caused climate change we have to eventually decide the maximum human capacity of the Earth. War, famine and disease can't be continually relied upon for population control.
Policies like the Kyoto Treaty are mere band-aids and serve only to distract from the huge moral and ethical challenge of population management.

Man you hit the nail on the head. Too many people are the cause of most problems in the world today.

With very few exceptions cities, countries and regions were all better off with less people than there are now. There may be a few places (Iceland?) which are better off with a bigger population than previously but most places have gone down as a result.

For example people romanticize NYC and Paris, but give me a break, Cezanne and F. Scott Fitzgerald were not living with zillions of people stomping on them. People are living in the past. The present is not nice.

Traffic and pollution are the two biggest problems we face and they are both mainly caused by overpopulation. The other big problem, terrorism, is seriously exacerbated by too many Arabs breeding too fast with too few resources.

[KarlMarx]

Actually, bad economic policies have killed more people and have ruined the environment more than overpopulation or capitalism.

Name the cleanest countries in the world and you'll have to name us as one of them. Name the filthiest countries in the world, and you'll have to name the Soviet Union and China, countries that both had Communist economies. Why is that? Because free market economies boost living standards and cause people to expect clean air and water in addition to bread and butter.

Overpopulation is a problem? I think not. Look at Japan, one of the most populous countries on the planet, and with one of the highest standards of living. Why is that? If overpopulation caused problems, then why is Japan so prosperous?

Actually, underpopulation is a problem too. Look at Europe, they've had zero population growth for years. The result is that they have a labor shortage. To deal with that, they've imported labor from other parts of the world. Mostly, people from Muslim countries, who refuse to assimilate and bring their bad habits, e.g. rioting in the streets when someone says something not to their liking, with them.

Carbon Dioxide is not the problem, the Asian Brown Cloud problem is. No one is saying or doing anything about it, because China is a big part of the cause. And what is China doing about global warming? It's building hundreds of coal fired power plants.... that should help CO2 level immensely.

No, this global warming hoopla isn't about the environment, it's about dragging down the West. That's how China and other countries see it and are more than happy to see Al Gore do their work for them.

[manu1959]

the number of people is not the issue....as karl pointed out, it is what they do, the things they build....

[avatar4321]

The idea that people are polluting simply by exhaling is a crazy and dangerous notion because it justifies mass murder in the eyes of the environmentalist wacko who sees it as necessary to save the world.

[manu1959]

co2 is not a polutant... plants kinda like it.....however, the unregulated factorise in russia, china and india are a problem...except that polutants create a reflective layer which should reflect sunlight not focus its heat....

[Dilloduck]

the number of people is not the issue....as karl pointed out, it is what they do, the things they build....

Not the issue-yet. But you are correct. People buy, build, travel and CONSUME. We cannot make things out of nothing and with nothing. What happens to the economy when people stop consuming and we do things like use our food supply to create energy?

[manu1959]

Not the issue-yet. But you are correct. People buy, build, travel and CONSUME. We cannot make things out of nothing and with nothing. What happens to the economy when people stop consuming and we do things like use our food supply to create energy?

it is not that we buy, build travel and consume...it is how we do that....some countries china, india, russia...don't give a fuck and have no rules .....

[Dilloduck]

it is not that we buy, build travel and consume...it is how we do that....some countries china, india, russia...don't give a fuck and have no rules .....

Sorry---I've screwed up and spoken like a globalist and don't mean to imply that it's all America's fault yet there is no way around the fact that overpopulation will ultimately stress the earth to the point where we cannot safely or cleanly support the population. If the rest of the world is not going to partipate in the solution, America is just pissing up a rope.

[Nuc]

Sorry---I've screwed up and spoken like a globalist and don't mean to imply that it's all America's fault yet there is no way around the fact that overpopulation will ultimately stress the earth to the point where we cannot safely or cleanly support the population. If the rest of the world is not going to partipate in the solution, America is just pissing up a rope.

Well one problem with the "America is clean" argument is that not all of America's negative impact on the environment takes place in America. Americans are depleting resources all over the world with their extravagant lifestyle. You can't just look at America itself because we don't produce all of our own consumables. Japan for example is worse in this regard. Places like India are gross, but they're mainly depleting their own resources and degrading their own environment.

Another problem is that I consider traffic to be a form of pollution, or at least a very negative environmental factor, and that's definitely amplified by overpopulation. Nobody can say traffic hasn't gotten much worse in the States over the past few decades. It's horrendous. So even if the cars are burning cleaner, they're still wrecking the environment because it's no fun to sit in gridlock.

[glockmail]

The math was done years ago---The world is OVER-POPULATED. How in the hell can all these people help but cause some kind of climate change? I don't care how you try to slice it. We have X amount of resources and the number of people continues to balloon.
If we are worried about human caused climate change we have to eventually decide the maximum human capacity of the Earth. War, famine and disease can't be continually relied upon for population control.
Policies like the Kyoto Treaty are mere band-aids and serve only to distract from the huge moral and ethical challenge of population management.

Maybe so for now, but the reality is that we may be in for a population IMplosion:
Remember the number 1.85. It is the lodestar of a new demography that will lead us to a different world. It should change the way we think about economics, geopolitics, the environment, culture--and about ourselves.

To make their calculations orderly, demographers have typically worked on the assumption that the "total fertility rate"--the number of children born per woman--would eventually average out to 2.1. Why 2.1? At that rate the population stabilizes over time: a couple has two children, the parents eventually die, and their children "replace" them. (The 0.1 accounts for children who die before reaching the age of reproduction.)

Now, in a new report, United Nations demographers have bowed to reality and changed this standard 2.1 assumption. For the last five years they have been examining one of the most momentous trends in world history: the startling decline in fertility rates over the last several decades. In the United Nations' most recent population report, the fertility rate is assumed to be 1.85, not 2.1. This will lead, later in this century, to global population decline.

In a world brought up on the idea of a "population explosion," this is a radical notion. The world's population is still growing--it will take some time for it to actually start shrinking--but the next crisis is depopulation.

The implications of lower fertility rates are far-reaching. One of the most profound is their potential to reduce economic inequality around the world and alter the balance of power among nations.

The United Nations divides the world into two groups, less developed countries and more developed countries. The most surprising news comes from the poorer countries. In the late 1960's, these countries had an average fertility rate of 6.0 children per woman. Today it is 2.9--and still falling. Huge and continuing declines have been seen in countries like Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey and (of great importance to the United States) Mexico.

The more developed countries, in contrast, have seen their fertility rates fall from low to unsustainable. Every developed nation is now below replacement level. In the early 1960's, Europe's fertility rate was 2.6. Today the rate is 1.4, and has been sinking for half a century. In Japan the rate is 1.3. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16465,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

[Dilloduck]

Maybe so for now, but the reality is that we may be in for a population IMplosion: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16465,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

Maybe but why am I not impressed by UN demographers---I figure we have a better chance for a pandemic or more war to reduce our numbers.

[glockmail]

Maybe but why am I not impressed by UN demographers---I figure we have a better chance for a pandemic or more war to reduce our numbers.

I read about this in The American Spectator a while back but can't find a link- its real all right.

When I was a kid the Libs were predicting global cooling and a population explosion. Of course, the exact opposite is occuring.

[GW in Ohio]

Yes, clearly the world is overpopulated.

We need to stop humans from breeding so much.

I think in many undeveloped countries, sex is the main entertainment. We need to start exporting HBO and video games.

[MtnBiker]

I think in many undeveloped countries, sex is the main entertainment. We need to start exporting HBO and video games.

Al Gore should include that in his speeches.

[stephanie]

Al Gore should include that in his speeches.

:2up:

[Gaffer]

The news mentions global warming at least once in every broadcast. Why is it everytime they do that I think.....Y2K?

Global warming/cooling nuts

Armegeddon nuts

islamist nuts

super volcano nuts

astroid/comet nuts.

Did I miss anybody?