Senior Member
You are posting drunk aren't you?Originally Posted by stephanie
I love it how.....Al Bore the* politician* is the know all about climate in his movie.. So were all just suppose to bow down and take it in the shorts..........silently, and peacefully...
Yet all the scientist in the above documentary don't know what their talking about...
Senior Member
Why do you ask?
You don't like to be faced with the truth...
So you belittle someone..
Last edited by stephanie; 03-25-2007 at 01:17 AM.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."
Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)
Scoundrel
Certainly not. I went and looked at the TerraPass web site. If I bought into the carbon offsets nonsense, I could easily offset my own emmissions three times over, totaling up a negative output.
"Lighght"
- This 'poem' was bought and paid for with $2,250 of YOUR money.
Name one thing the government does better than the private sector and I'll show you something that requires the use of force to accomplish.
Senior Member
no, your post was incoherent
Senior Member
well we must be using the same term in two entirely different ways.
"carbon neutral" is a scientific term which describes producing power or perhaps any number of activities which do not produce a by product of carbon waste (like CO2) in addition to that which is already present in the biosphere.
Scoundrel
Carbon neutral in its most common use (as used by Al Gore) means that one buys enough carbon credits to theoretically offset his own emmissions and no more.
"Lighght"
- This 'poem' was bought and paid for with $2,250 of YOUR money.
Name one thing the government does better than the private sector and I'll show you something that requires the use of force to accomplish.
Senior Member
OK, You are correct. In my lexicon that is a new use of the word. But it made the Oxford dictionary "word of the year" in 2006 defined the way you are using it.
Senior Member
IF that is legit, that seriously doesn't explain every OTHER professional who commented. (shrug). You want people to believe in Global warming because you are anti-human.
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
Senior Member
No, actually the links provided state several examples wherein Durgin basically lied in producing 3 different psuedo documentaries.
I don't have a horse in the global warming race. I couldn't care much less about it.
But I know that there is an industry in place to create fictional "science" to discredit the real science, just like there is an industry cooking up the false science of "intelligent design".
Wherefore art thou, Lily?
Mother Jones exposed Exxon/Mobil for funding over 40 groups involved in trying to cloud the issue of global warming.
linkThere is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise. Conservative think tanks are trying to undermine this conclusion with a disinformation campaign employing “reports” designed to look like a counterbalance to peer-reviewed studies, skeptic propaganda masquerading as journalism, and events like the AEI luncheon that Crichton addressed. The think tanks provide both intellectual cover for those who reject what the best science currently tells us, and ammunition for conservative policymakers like Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who calls global warming “a hoax.”
This concerted effort reflects the shared convictions of free-market, and thus antiregulatory, conservatives. But there’s another factor at play. In addition to being supported by like-minded individuals and ideologically sympathetic foundations, these groups are funded by ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company. Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of “skeptic” scientists who continue to do so. Beyond think tanks, the count also includes quasi-journalistic outlets like Tech CentralStation.com (a website providing “news, analysis, research, and commentary” that received $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003), a FoxNews.com columnist, and even religious and civil rights groups. In total, these organizations received more than $8 million between 2000 and 2003 (the last year for which records are available; all figures below are for that range unless otherwise noted). ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Lee Raymond serves as vice chairman of the board of trustees for the AEI, which received $960,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. The AEI-Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, which officially hosted Crichton, received another $55,000. When asked about the event, the center’s executive director, Robert Hahn—who’s a fellow with the AEI—defended it, saying, “Climate science is a field in which reasonable experts can disagree.” (By contrast, on the day of the event, the Brookings Institution posted a scathing critique of Crichton’s book.)
Last edited by Baron Von Esslingen; 03-27-2007 at 01:52 AM. Reason: fixing code
Scoundrel
So, they must be horribly biased, while the studies whose government funding depends on them predicting the end of the world and the studies funded by Greenpeace, an anti-capitalist organization, and the studies funded by the U.N., an anti-American organization, are all completely unbiased and only tell the absolute truth. Yeah, right.
"Lighght"
- This 'poem' was bought and paid for with $2,250 of YOUR money.
Name one thing the government does better than the private sector and I'll show you something that requires the use of force to accomplish.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote