»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Stop global warming now
| The Alley |
|
Stop global warming now |
|
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
What you can do to stop global warming: 1. Stop using hair spray 2. stop cooking as this produces carbon compounds 3. Stop breathing; get your friends to stop breathing; if enough people STOP, It's going to STOP! 4. Throw out all your appliances because they use electricity. 5. Stop traveling, as even draft animals produce methane, a dangerous gas which should not exist on Earth. 6. Get rid of George Junior because he has oil for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and for snacks, causes hurricanes, blows away countries he doesn't like, is the planet's most dangerous terrorist, parties with his Halliburton friends, and refuses to sign Hokkaido. If we could just get rid of poor Junior and his Halliburton friends, wouldn't everything be all right? And why not throw some peaches at poor George. Wouldn't everything be all right? |
||
| © Copyright 2007 The Sun - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
You have to get six billion or so others on board; stop cooking, eating and other things. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: quote: |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Move back to Mars.  |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I believe, understandably, we can't expect everyone to adopt to all these ideals of how to combat global warming, as indeed it feels very much like trying to instruct a child to wash his/her hands so as not to spread infectious germs everywhere and keep as much an environment free of virulent material as possible. I will say that one immense way I believe one can combat global warming effectively in the more general sense is understanding how you shop. Here in Portland, we have co-ops and organic markets everywhere, and I regularly do my monthly grocery shopping either at the Portland Farmers Market on weekends between April 7th and December 22nd, or during the four-month off-season at Wild Oats or Sustainable Harvest, which are more alternative grocers. I generally purchase Alter Eco Fair Trade products, especially red quinoa from the Anapqui cooperative in Bolivia who benefit about 1,200 small farmers from the south of the Bolivian Altiplano as well as regional educational and agricultural programs, ruby rice from the Agrarian Cooperative of Surin, Thailand who grow it using traditional farming methods, and rooibos tea from the Bokkeveld plateau in the Northern Cape province of South Africa, grown from native tea producers there. In terms of produce, I strive to buy locally. The average meal in fact travels more than 1,500 miles from the farm to the plate, and in result is what drives up transportation costs and our overdependence on fossil fuels and other foreign reserves. So when I buy some crop or item that doesn't grow natively in Oregon, I make an effort to see it is a Fair Trade product that's ecologically friendly, and otherwise when shopping for brussels sprouts, anaheim peppers, sweet potatoes, etc. I make an effort to see it's grown in either Oregon or Washington, from the sustainable fields of Stiebrs Farms in Yelm, Washington, to the natural harvests at Liepold Farms in Boring, Oregon!  I think little things, from the length of your showers to putting on an extra sweater your grandmother knitted you ultimately won't make any significant difference. I highly admire those who go the extra mile and genuinely do such things from mowing their lawn manually to using clotheslines, but all the same I feel the real power you have rests with the power of the dollar; where you decide where the dollar's fate will rest, and I believe we can all make a huge difference in making more sustainable choices in where we shop, as ultimately the combined efforts and decisions of a handful of citizens in going to the farmers market rather than TGI Fridays can affect the general dynamic even if only by a barely noticable decimal. I believe re-directing your dollar in a more sustainable manner is the single greatest way in combatting global warming. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: We'd better. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 for Reb.How well do I know... that's just 'cause I could.  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Essorant, “Move back to Mars.” Wrong . . . “Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto. . .” . http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTQzYWY1MGM5NTkyZTM2YWVlMDMzMDlhMzQwNThhNDU= . John |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
That's what you get for studying science in social studies class John. backatcha Blazey! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Maybe global warming in facts is yet another example of humans especially we Americans not being able to accept at last that the world much less the universe isn’t concerned with us . . . . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The universe doesn't give a crap. That's why we have to. There are natural warming cycles -- and we've amplified it. The planet is finite. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. But who is We? Define . There are over six billion with over nine billion expected in 2050 most of whom will be in countries other than the West whose population is and, apart from immigration from those other countries, will be declining. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. HOUSE # 1: A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South. HOUSE # 2: Designed by an architecture professor at a national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers and sinks goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape. HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore. HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush. So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you won't hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth." Verified on Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
There is a missing of the point . . . The mindless sun couldn’t care less What it will do it will do Regardless of you or I . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
One thing we're certainly good at -- recycling conversations. The science is in. Mike -- it would appear that Laura is green.  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: When I said what I said, I certainly believe that both many millions of Americans and millions more worldwide truly believe global warming to be a moral issue, and that they are indeed mindful of the consequences of inaction and want to see a future for their children and their chldren's children where river basins don't dry up and in result devastate agricultural communities where millions depend on food and water worldwide, where the extinction of many more species doesn't happen because climate change keeps harming the natural habitat of too many animals, where skin cancer rates continue shooting through the roof, etc. I believe the determination is there for a global campaign to reverse these trends. All I was suggesting before was that there are certain things I think even many of the most ecologically-minded of individuals will overlook as was included on those lists, like un-plugging their television every single time they're finished watching a program, or wearing sweaters all winter, or air-drying their clothes, or to expect all carnivores to go vegetarian or dramatically reduce meat consumption, and that ultimately none of those sorts of things make any real difference. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
Global warming is a religious movement, and its rituals (inflating tires, buying or gan, planting trees) are little more than a feel good exercise. To loosely paraphrase Marx, the global warming faith is simply the latest opiate of the masses The proponents of this green religion advance arguments similar to those of Christian apologists. There is nothing wrong with religion until it pretends to be something other than what it is, religion. But when the proponents of global warming, Shinto, and creationism (in order to pitch their product to a popular culture) disguise their theology as science they can do more damage than a single can of hair spray. It only through science (not watching sixty minutes) that we can come to a greater understanding of the living biosphere we inhabit and how to take care of it. I think it would be fun to actually plant a tree try to clean up pelicans drowning in an oil slick, but it won't save penguins that accidentally migrate to Ecuador. Throughout its history our Earth has known climatic cataclysms and climatic shifts that almost defy comprehension, (that was before we even got here) and there is every reason to think it will undergo many more. It has been 10,000 years since the "close" of the last glacial, and it is not hard to imagine that the 'earth's mean temperatures will peak as we slide into the next glacial. For all our arrogant pretensions that we can control the global climate, we are still at the mercy of the forces of nature. The cosmic forces that gave rise to humanity can just as easily destroy and represent greater threats to our survival than diesel engines. I predict that in fifty years, maybe twenty-five, we won't be talking about global warming any more. disguised as science they can be very dangerous and greatly compromise the ability of science to help us come to terms with our living biosphere. |
||
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
Oops I screwed up and found some typos in the ast version. This is the final draft of what I really meant to post Southern Cross Global warming is a religious movement, and its rituals (inflating tires, buying or gan, planting trees) are little more than a feel good exercise. To loosely paraphrase Marx, the global warming faith is simply the latest opiate of the masses. The proponents of this green religion advance arguments similar to those of Christian apologists. There is nothing wrong with religion until it pretends to be something other than what it is, religion. But when the proponents of global warming, Shinto, and creationism (in order to pitch their product to a popular culture) disguise their theology as science they can do more damage than a single can of hair spray. It is only through the study of science, (not by watching sixty minutes) that we can come to a greater understanding of the living biosphere we inhabit and how to take care of it. I think it would be fun to actually plant a tree or try to clean up pelicans drowning in an oil slick, but it won't save penguins that accidentally migrate to Ecuador. Natural selection will take care of that. Throughout its history our Earth has known climatic cataclysms and climatic shifts that almost defy comprehension, (that was before we even got here) and there is every reason to think it will undergo many more. It has been 10,000 years since the "close" of the last glacial, and it is not hard to imagine that the 'earth's mean temperatures will peak as we slide into the next glacial. For all our arrogant pretensions that we can control the global climate, we are still at the mercy of the forces of nature. The cosmic forces that gave rise to humanity can just as easily destroy it, and it is these forces that represent a greater threat to our survival than diesel engines. I predict that in fifty years, maybe twenty-five, we won't be talking about global warming any more. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Recycling conversations, LR? My post dealt directly with this thread. We have a lot of people paying lip service to global warming and energy conservation. Are they sincere or just jumping on a political bandwagon? Anyone truly sincere would condemn Al Gore and his failure, his absolute disregard, to practice what he preaches. Those same people would applaud (asking too much, I know) George Bush's actions in energy conservation at his own house. And yet....where is either one? The transparency and shallowness of beliefs is obvious... But don't let that stop the dismissal quips, reb After all, when facts cannot be refuted what's a guy to do?? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Mike -- not talking about your snopes story -- whatever relevence it has or lacks -- my response was to John -- we've had this conversation before ; /main/search.cgi?rAction=DisplayResults&cyclefile=135805804467&run=1 many times. Just go to one of them for my responses. I'm saving space on Ron's server, and electricity. Noah, persons such as John, Mike, Jamie, and Pete are never going to be convinced and will be making excuses no matter what ecological catastrophe occurs. Which is why we have to make sure that all efforts towards conservation of carbon-emitting fuels takes place. Take a look under the hood of your car -- about 50% of the components you see were put there by legislation. We have to do the same thing in other areas of conservation -- like manufacturing televisions that don't suck up energy when they aren't in use -- mandatory proximity sensors in rooms that can turn off lights (we enforce building codes, after all, regarding structural integrity and electrical safety-- we can do the same for energy usage integrity) etc. That's what I'm talking about. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
whatever relevence it has or lacks LOLOL! That's a beautiful thing, LR,and exactly what I mean. Obvious bias and/or prejudice cannot even acknowledge irrefutable fact without a disclaimer. No problem....aside from the fact it has been well-documented and even verified by Snopes (Which is an excellent reference whenever it agrees with one's point), I wouldn't expect you, Noah, Kacey, or anyone else to acknowledge it. After all, there are limits to what one can mentally endure. Hey, maybe Gore checks his tire air pressure occasionally...that can make him one of your good guys. Don't worry, Pete or Denise, people like LR are never going to acknowledge that someone like Gore and his inconvenient thruths are a sham and that Bush actually does practice what energy conservationists want to see done......at least, not without disclaimers. |
||
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
Local rebel: It has never been my contention here that global warming does not exist, only that it does for its adherents. Nor have I said people shouldn't bother planting trees, recycling, going veggie or doing anything else that makes them feel good, or at least helps them think they are doing useful things. Certainly, no harm is done when we pursue a "green" lifestyle. Some will do that while others will not, depending on there beliefs. I am just making the point that strict adherence to the tenets of the global warming religious folk movement is lunacy and that, since global warming is a religious movement, science is completely out of it. Dogmatic global warmers dogmatically assert that the science is clear, with the same conviction held by Christians who believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Never mind that this is a contradiction; I will never try to talk Jesus out of a believer. Although many scientists believe that some kind of planetary warming is taking place, others are less certain. Then there is the issue of definitions and semantics, a fuzzy ambiguity or inability to agree on what precisely is being "warmed," what constitutes warming, whether the tools to measure it are appropriate, or just what is meant by global. These complexities and uncertainties over exactly what is meant have trouble making it through the popular press, not to mention pop culture TV programs like sixty minutes. In the end Nature isn't going to care what we do or don't believe in, nor what we do or don't do about it. She is giving us some time to strut and fret our hour upon the stage, amusing ourselves as best we can. Ultimately we will share the fate of the dinosaurs and dodos. In the mean time, don't let anybody frighten you out of your freely chosen conspicuous consumption life stile! Floating in the tropopause Southern Cross That's what I'm saying. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
 and you say it well, Jaime |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If it is your point Mike, that human influence on global warming does not exist because Al Gore wastes energy -- that's a rather large leap to make. Al Gore didn't invent global warming, after all, only the internet! The story referenced is merely an interesting aside. It isn't evidence for or against global warming -- only the choices individuals have made. And, since, being men, we know that wives make the decisions about houses -- we know Tipper isn't green and Laura is! So what? Kerry, as a Catholic, is personally against abortion. That doesn't mean that he's anti-choice though. Many Republicans, I suspect, (such as certain Vice-Presidents) might be personally in favor of expanded gay-rights -- but professionally obligated to oppose them. Since Al isn't running for anything it really doesn't effect the issue. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Jamie quote: since this is merely your religious belief why should anyone respond to it? /pip/Forum6/HTML/001287.html |
||
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
One should also bear in mind the evanescent nature of social and religious movements. In 1975 leading authorities were telling us that the Earth was cooling and there were many popular stories and documentaries speculating on what we had done or what we could do about it. Remember that? ... ... ... what could have happened in 30 odd years? ... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I don’t care if those who are now concerned about global warming, with their own personal resources, build a big air conditioner in Siberia; I’ll bundle up. It’s when they burden the rest with the expense directly or by tax subterfuge that I take issue. . |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Actually, I believe you brought up a very good point, regarding the virtue of practicing what you preach, and how less convincing one might seem if one's lifestyle contrasts with ones mission statement. Although I believe "An Inconvenient Truth" is indeed an important documentary that I recommend to anyone regardless of political ID, I also believe it's fair to highlight the living accomodations of the architects of these sorts of projects and see how they add up to what they talk about. And I believe Gore shouldn't be surprised that he's being critiqued for his living accomodations in that they make him appear out-in-touch with the cultural mainstream and snobbish, and that he would be all the more persuasive and convincing if his living accomodations were more earthly and closer to the cultural mainstream. Making personal profit from such a film project as this, or staging a potential 2008 presidential bid from it, I believe is unfortunate. Having said that, I still believe the film is more than worth watching and regardless of some of these personal hypocrisies, the film is itself well-researched and scientifically-based, and its thesis presents how global warming is truly a moral issue, which is an American mainstream belief. On that note, I also admire the efforts George W. Bush have made in promoting sustainability and conservation on his home ranch. As I've pointed out in previous threads, I wish his presidential and administration's environmental record was parallel to his efforts at home (I believe him to be the worst environmental president thus far in American history) but despite that I'm glad he's doing his part on the local level. * Which brings me to another point and that is, I yearn for the GOP to return to their core principles and roots, one of which is their environmental roots. After all, it was the Republican Party that spearheaded and led the environmental movement. It was Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt and Senator John Chafee who worked the hardest to protect our public lands and the health and safety of our communities, as well as enact the National Parks system and national wildlife refuges. It was Richard Nixon who signed the legislation that established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the modern amendments to the Clean Air Act. It was Republican John Weeks who was the chief patron of the bill that allowed the federal government to establish national forests in the eastern United States. It was Republican Congressman John Saylor who led the effort to pass the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act. And in a general sense, the Republicans were the party that ignited the conservation movement in particular. Republicans understood even more than Democrats in previous decades the values of transcendentalism, a philosophical movement which rose to national promience following the famous writings of Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson that expressed the virtues and necessities of the natural world, which inspired the moral ground of the conservation movement that peaked during the Roosevelt Era and lasted onto about 1976 when The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was passed in Congress. For it was Theodore Roosevelt who said: “The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others.” And that's exactly what he did; protecting more public land than ALL previous presidents combined. Reflecting on that history, all I can say is, "What happened?" Ever since the Reagan Era, and especially beginning with the commencement of the 104th Congress in January of 1995, this same party has been attacking their own environmental legislation, their own accomplishments, their own philosophy, and all that progress has eroded, sadly. The GOP is now currently riddled with anti-environmental nuts who are parrots of big oil corporations and their lobbyist influences. I was glad to see one of the worst of them, Richard Pombo, defeated last November in his district, but then there's still individuals like James Inhofe, John Doolittle, Heather Wilson, Charles Taylor, Deborah Pryce, Saxby Chambliss, Mitch McConnell and Brian Bilbray who simply represent much of what's wrong with the GOP nowadays, and how the GOP have not only abandoned their core principles; they've ran against their own landmark achievements. It's truly embarrassing to see people like Inhofe representing the party today, and I sincerely hope the GOP establishment finds its way again, which they can find the light through the eyes of Republicans like Republicans For Environmental Protection Government Affairs Director David Jenkins, former congressman Pete McClosky, former EPA head Russell Train, and former Senator Lincoln Chafee. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Mike- why does everything have to be politics? I commend Bush for his eco-friendly ranch- I think that's really cool, and also an interesting fact I did not know. Can't say I'm too surprised about Gore's house- a lot of celebrities don't don't practice what they preach. But... what does that have to do with the discussion people were already having about the practicality of environmentalism in everyday life? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I am nodding with hush here. I mean, let's suppose that global warming has nothing to do with carbon based pollutants, etc. Why NOT just start living as clean and efficiently as we possibly can NOW? You don't think I live here in New Orleans a little more than paranoid, after all those chemicals spilled over, and I watched a city develop what became known as Katrina Cough? And ya'll prolly didn't hear about the weird nose bleeds, ear bleeds, and inexplicable rashes either. I do know Murphy Oil did do SOMETHING cleanly--that was a generous and speedy settlement and buy out of surrounding properties in St. Bernard Parish. Just start NOW. Why does that have to be political? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think there is a big difference between earth itself in general and earth's ability to accomodate life in a stable way. Earth without specifying life or life's comfort will be able to overcome almost anything, and will so whether or not it has life, just as Mars and the other planets. But earth, when specifying the ability and continued ability for earth to sustain life in a stable and accomodating way is far more sensitive, limited, and influenced by differences, including everyday choices than just the stability of the planet itself. This ability is very small and sensitive compared to the rest of the solar system. The planet itself, will get thro it, just like Mars did/does. But will it get thro it and still be able to sustain life, and sustain life in such a way that it is not ever more endangered? This is something that our choices can make a difference to, even if they obviously cannot wholly determine it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good question, hush. The answer is....it DOESN'T have to be political at all. I could have just as easily used the same example, but saying that house #1 belonged to Joe Smith and house #2 belonged to Sam Spade, in which case there would have been responses that Smith was an energy abuser and Spade was a model citizen, using whatever resources possible to make his house environmentally sound. However, by using the actual people the houses belonged to, NO ONE had anything bad to say about house #1 and NO ONE, until you, had anything good to say about house #2. Why is it political? Ask THEM, not me. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So whatami Mike? Chopped Liver? Me; quote: That's a compliment. It aint easy being green. It's good to see that when GW built his make-believe ranch in Crawford that he decided to conserve energy. Frankly I don't care why people choose to conserve. My father couldn't leave a room without turning off the lights -- even if it was going to be for just a couple of seconds. Didn't have a thing to do with anthropgenic global climate change. Just the fact that he didn't want to pay for the electricity. Now, if Bush had chosen to implement those same measures across the country -- that would be one thing -- but instead he and his Congressional cohorts put out Orwelian titled systems like the 'Clean Air Act' that gutted the previous environmental standards. If you'd wanted to go a-political you could have merely included all the information -- but, instead we got the same old cavil -- quote: Clicking the link http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp contained on the resourse you use leads us to some more information; quote: |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Then why was it necessary injecting politics into the thread on your very first response on Reply #12, as you did here: quote: Then, in response #20, you add: quote: With the exception of Jaime Fradera's opening post arguably having a political intent or point to it (sometimes I'm not sure if it's meant to be 100% sarcastic or not) as the rest of us were focusing directly on the issue of global warming in a non-political fashion, you were the one who first carried a political tinge to the conversation. Then, toward the end of the first page when the thread began digressing somewhat, I felt it necessary to point out that while Gore makes decisions on a personal level that contrast from the points and mission statement of his film, book and lectures, the president and his party do likewise, where I commended in Post #27 the president for his genuine conservation efforts on his Crawford ranch, but also sharply critiqued his poor environmental record in how the same sort of sustainability he promotes toward his home and family is seldom seen through his administration's policies, and offered a brief history lesson to show how the GOP was once the undisputed environmental and conservation party that revolutionized the environmental movement, and how now it has become a party tainted by big oil lobbyists and big business interests that rail against our environmental milestones, where the GOP have abandoned these values of conservation. I am most interested in talking about this issue free of politics most of all, but when one intends to toss some political punch unilaterally into the discussion, I will feel it necessary to respond and address another side to the political ends of the debate, and that is despite a majority of all political affliations believing in global warming/climate change and that we must do much more to reverse its effects, there are some naysayers in the GOP establishment who insist it is a hoax or merely hype, including a senator from Oklahoma whose primary source in arguing against global warming is a work of fiction written by Michael Crichton. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
About the house thing: Does anybody know why Bush made his house eco-friendly? Does this mean that his policies in the administration are eco-friendly? I don't know, is it okay for a smoker to say that you shouldn't start smoking? Is it okay for a non-smoker to say that you should start? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I don't think Al is insincere, misled maybe? I honestly believe he believes the planet is dying along with many others. I'm sure he's liking the spotlight too much. I shake my head at the things printed about his house and have a good mind to knock on his door and see what he has to say about it. That's how approachable Al Gore is. But Reb's article and others have suggested his home is better suited to green than previously charged. Something of such extreme reach should be practiced if preached. It's not like he's pushing a deodorant or a shampoo like many stars who never use it. [This message has been edited by rwood (04-07-2007 07:41 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Folks consider me quite charming When I speak of global warming My passion strikes them to their very core. They hear my strong foreboding Of the atmosphere exploding And applaud their newest hero - Albert Gore!! I'm on a holy mission To erase all gas emissions Cutting back on all the power that we use. We must learn to be more frugal (Here I sound my "Save Earth!" bugle) Or planet will be doomed if we refuse. Hey, let's be a little lenient For these truths are inconvenient That I never seem to practice what I preach But every watt that my house uses Can be backed up by excuses Students! You must follow what the teachers teach! Got a big, best-selling movie Hollywood has called me "groovy" There's an Oscar sitting on my bedroom shelf. I tell everyone to wake up Or the earth is gonna break up And these rules apply to all except myself. I'm a little teddy-bear type Cashing in on all the big hype Preaching gloom and doom for all that don't comply. Should I find my words aren't fooling I can switch to global cooling Everyone knows I'm a versatile kind of guy!!! |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
ROFLMAO I think you absolutely nailed the country's biggest hypocrit right on.  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
On that note, Michael, I did find your poem "Earth Day Rambles" in Open to be most enjoyable and thought-provoking indeed, and indeed it's one I'd recommend to the rest of you in that it well reflects on the breadth of man/woman's relationship to Nature. Having said that, while I absolutely admire your immense optimism, there's one verse in the poem that I took deep concern with: * "Mother Nature is not worried. Man cannot hurt her Man can only hurt Man. Mother will simply shrug her shoulders and start over, if necessary create another bacteria in a million years or so." * I believe it's important to be optimistic, but there's something between being a responsible and pragmatic optimist, and an irresponsible and naive optimist. And while I too have faith that both God and Mother Nature work in benevolent, mysterious ways and in Mother Nature's womb hold all the sacred remedies and healing secrets of our living Earth, it's also naive to approach the world as though it's "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest", where fairies and a bat voiced by Robin Williams will somehow stop all of the world's deforestation problems and convince all lumberjacks that the clear-cutting of all old growth forest ruins the native habitat of thousands of species and leaves the area deficient of natural minerals. I'm optimistic, but not in the sense of that 1998 Talking Heads song "(Nothing But) Flowers" where in a post-apocalyptic world all parking lots will become oases, all Pizza Huts will become covered with daisies and discount stores will become cornfields, but in the sense that man/woman worldwide truly value their natural surroundings and enough will rise to the occasion to rejuvenate their relationship to the natural world, that man/woman will provide Mother Nature the space and faith to start over without interference, that most men and women will help rather than hurt Mother Nature. There is one verse in your poem I 100% agree with, however: * Earth will survive. We are the ones with a problem. * It doesn't at all mean we are evil, nor that we are hopeless, nor that we are all irrational. It simply means because we are human, and thus have the ability to both reason and to bend things to our will, our challenge is through our decision-making; how we choose either to fuse these passions and direct them for altruism and the common good, or if we use them in manipulating and exploiting the good intentions of others. And I'm optimistic that ultimately most will do the former, and the Earth will be rejuvenated. But we are by no means absent of responsibility in being good stewards of the Earth, of maintaining our relationship to the Earth. I realized all too well when I was fourteen reading T.S Eliot's "The Waste Land" what it's like to be divorced from the natural world, and is partly up to us to decide whether our children will continue to cherish Walden Pond in its original splendor, or if we'll be wrapped up in some brown fog of a winter dawn. And while I believe Mother Nature holds faith, I believe She has a right to be worried also. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Everyone's surely entitled to his/her opinion on how authentic Al Gore and his concerns are. Having said that, there's one question I wish to argue those openly criticizing, even detracting him here: * "Have you even seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet?" * In my opinion, the documentary was well-researched and scientifically-grounded, and its purpose is to persuade that global warming is a moral issue. Others here can certainly argue otherwise, and I encourage the debate, but I feel there's a lack of credibility in those that ridicule a work and its narrator without observing it for themselves, while those that have seen it and critique it are far more credible and convincing. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I guess I just don't get it. If this is about hypocrisy, then both houses should be discussed. How can the standing president not be the number one hypocrite? If Gore were running, I would at least understand the subtext. But Gore isn't running -- at least for the moment -- so why focus on him? Where does this come from? Is it really just subterfuge? What is the right thing to do? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, it is very easy to ridicule the narrator when his actions entirely go against what he is preaching, much like listening to a man speaking about the virtues of vegetarianism while munching on a Big Mac. Al Gore is an extremely poor example of what he is preaching for others to do. Pardon me for being political but I feel that, were he Republican, he would be lambasted for his actions. How anyone cannot see through this man, regardless of political affiliation, is beyond me. He is nothing more than a snake oil salesman using environmentalism as his schtick to be in the public eye.As far as his documentary is concerned, it appears to be a feel-good piece in which the specifics of it have been challenged by scientists. Gore, for example, warns that, due to global warming, Florida and California could actually go underwater with the rising of the oceans due to the melting of the icebergs. Scientists agree that is true but, if it were to occur, it would take a minimum of 4-5 centuries. They declaim several other points in the same way. Did you notice anything strange at the Oscars? They had a cute little set-up after the presentation where Gore was to be asked about his intentions for a presidential run. At that point, Gore said something like, "I would like to take this opportunity to announce to the world that..." and then the music signaling out-of-time began to play, at which point Gore smiled, waved goodbye, and walked off. It was a cute little idea that got some laughs. Funny thing is that no one was supposed to know about the Oscar results until the envelope was opened! The presenter acted surprised, Gore looked flabbergasted...how 'bout dat? Hooray for Hollywood! |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: If Gore were a Republican, I for one would be praising him just the same, just as I praise any Republican currently who has the courage to stand up to the oil and energy company lobbyists and special interests plaguing their party's leadership currently, including former congressmen like Pete McCloskey (who was a co-author of the Endangered Species Act and co-chaired the first Earth Day in 1970), former governors like Christine Todd Whitman (who successfully funded to preserve one million acres of open space and farmland in her home state of New Jersey with the help of voters) and any Republican who follows in the footsteps of Theodore Roosevelt, John P. Saylor, John Weeks and other ecologically conscious conservationists. Having said that, I believe when you look back on Gore's record, he appears quite consistent and genuine toward sustaining and conserving the environment. From what I've heard, he was one of the first politicians to publicly argue about climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases, and in fact co-sponsored the first congressional hearings on this subject in the late 1970s (he was actually a student of Roger Revelle, chairman of the National Academy Panel) as well as co-sponsored other hearings during the same time frame on toxic waste and global warming. I, too, have reservations about Al Gore, particularly of his personality to a degree and how he has a propensity of whining and holding grudges too often. However, regardless of some questionable living accomodations, I don't doubt that he genuinely cares about this issue, and if it turns out this was all about staging his comeback presidential campaign, well, you can rest assured that I for one won't vote for him, as would 58% of Americans saying there'd be "no chance" one recent poll revealed. quote: Of course Hollywood got cozy with him, they have a biased love toward many Democrats and a biased dislike toward many Republicans down there. It's obviously a wet dream among many in Hollywood that Al Gore will announce his candidacy, no question about that. Having said that, I actually interpreted that moment with Leonardo DiCaprio on the podium as nothing more than a pre-planned, staged joke, where he already knew many were hoping he'd declare his candidacy during his acceptance speech, and so, still insisting he won't run, pretended to rouse the spirits of the crowd until the incidental music drowned him out. Look, Gore KNOWS he'll have no chance and gain no traction in the Democratic primary UNLESS Obama plunges in the polls. Obama has struggled to gain ground this past month, stuck at 22%, but hasn't lost any support either, and frankly, Gore doesn't even look like he wants to run, given how out of shape and overweight he looks. * By the way, I hope you didn't mind I put your Open poem on the spot, which I did enjoy despite some light disagreements. I kind of felt you were actually expecting a response from me or others, given you wrote in parentheses in the poem's title (recycled for the Alley cats) Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
However, regardless of some questionable living accomodations, That's exactly what I mean, Noah. There are not only some (there are many) and they are not only questionable, they are unquestioned, documented and irrefutable. It seems to be impossible to just acknowledge that, doesn't it? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Which thing is it that you want us to acknowledge Mike? That Al and Tipper have a BIG house? Acknowledged. That in addition to living space they operate two offices there? Acknowledged. That they pay a premium on thier electric bill to obtain electricity from non-CO2 producing sources? Acknowledged. That they are in the process of installing solar panels to make some of thier own electricity? Acknowledged. What are you willing to acknowledge? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I offered a slice of my opinion of Al Gore, and if we are to further discussion regarding the credibility or discredibility of his project, I would strongly urge we start a new thread, as what concerns me particularly is that Al Gore's name is brought up as a distraction or red herring from the general issue of global warming itself, and an easy red herring in that he's a highly polarizing American politician along with George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential outcome debate. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" by Svante Arrhenius (Published 1896) What must be understood is that the global warming issue/discussion didn't begin with Al Gore. In fact, the earliest evidence of global warming in the public eye dates back over a century, to 1904, when Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius became, as NASA has acknowledged, "the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate." It was before then, in 1896, when he published a paper titled "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. It was here that he studied the increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions, where in his studies he came to the conclusion that "the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries." It wouldn't be until about 65 years later when the scientific community collectively would no longer find his claims implausible, when a geophysicist by the name of Roger Revelle, who had served on the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965, assisted in publishing the first high-level government mention of global warming. Then by 1977, the non-partisan National Academy of Sciences issued a study called Energy and Climate, which suggested with caution that the possibility of global warming "should lead neither to panic nor to complacency." but added it should "engender a lively sense of urgency in getting on with the work of illuminating the issues that have been identified and resolving the scientific uncertainties that remain." That is perhaps the central problem here; there is a divide between many panicking about the issue and many being too complacent about the issue. Perhaps I myself have been speaking too strongly on the potential worst-case scenarios inaction can result in in the future, but I believe much of it is that "lively sense of urgency" and the attempt of "illuminating" the bigger picture, that this issue could not merely affect shelves of ice, but farmers, critical habitats and perhaps your own backyard as well, depending on where you live. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
But Red-Herring is Mike's best dish! (he gets it in bulk down there in Florida yanno) -- A liitle Cayanne, Sea-Salt, Garlic, and Onion -- hoooooweee -- let it simmer for a while and you got yerself a new source of natural gas! |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Here's an amusing article: StarTribune I like the way the writer, Nick Coleman, handled the little piece. He used words like "right-wing wood-chippers," "phlegm," "kerfuffle," and "goobers." Ha. Hadn't heard that in a while. I think he made a great point with this: quote: I disagree about the scientific evidence being rock solid as far as some of the extreme conditions in extremely remote areas, ice caps here, and on Mars, etc. but my backyard is the Smoky Mountains, and I don't need to tell anyone how polluted they are. When I was little, the water was pure and now you can't even wade in the streams. The flora/fauna is suffering, even hiking there can cause respiratory problems. To stand on my porch and to look across and see the magnificent beauty (on a halfway decent clear day) I can't help but care. I do my part all I can. I'd love to be able to do more to my 100 year old home, but the expense is more than I can handle. Aside from rebuilding it, I've done all I could from new windows, doors, siding, roof, insulation, water heater, appliances, etc. Broke now, and broken hearted. I had to tear down and cover up a dual fireplace that proved to be too dangerous. It does make me mad that I do what I can to help with what little I've got, and yet the big fat coal burning cats in the area are still not up to par with their millions. Feels defeating, you know? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Red herring, LR? Well, it beats possum, which seems to be yours Of course, I can understand your admiration for anything that plays dead when in danger What were all of those excuses again that carry so much weight with you? Oh, yes, there was the climate at his place, which I assume would mean his neighbors would have that same excuse or are we talking a particular weather anomaly that hangs directly over his house alone? He and his wife work at home....so do about 20,000 other Americans. Wanna show me how that skyrockets energy usage? The green energy program? According to the TVA's Green Power Switch program Gore has been a resident of his mansion for 16 months but has only been participating in the green energy program for just over two months, despite the program being around for several years. Two months? Wasn't that in the area of Oscar time? The solar panels he is installing which SOME day in the future will cut down his energy usage? ).I've also estimated how many solar panels Gore would need to put on his roof in order to generate his own green power so that he can move clean off the grid. A common panel is 60W peak and measures roughly 2.5' x 3.5'. Judging by the average insulation measured at Oak Ridge, Gore would need *2324 such panels on his roof to **theoretically meet his annual load of 220,800kWh. He can purchase the panels wholesale for about a quarter million dollars... plus another $100,000 in various "electrical accoutrement." (And of course there's the issue of his huge natural gas usage for both home and swimming pool heating. He'll still need that carbon source.) The man is a phony. The claim is that the bills are due to retrofitting his house to make it more energy efficient: Kreider says she's confident that the Gores' utility bills will decrease. "They bought an older home and they're in the process of upgrading the home," she said. "Unfortunately that means an increase in energy use in order to have an overall decrease in energy use down the road." http://www.710kiro.com/showdj.asp?DJID=31726 It's not hard to see that Gore is just scrambling to make excuses and cover his tracks since his own disregard for his own policies have been made public and he even gets people like you to bite. Is it true that your favorite novel is Gullible's Travels? Here's some more reading material if you're interested...unlikely, I know. Al Gore has claimed (through a spokesman) that he offsets 100% of his Tennessee mansion’s electricity bill by purchasing renewables through a green power program. Upon reviewing the figures, this seems unlikely. Either Gore’s spokesperson is lying, or the AP has made a significant error in their reporting about Gore’s power usage. According to the AP (not the conservative think tank that originally broke this story), Gore’s electricity bill averaged $1200 a month last year, while using 191,000 kilowatt-hours. (Compared to an average Nashville household usage of 15,600 kwh.) That comes to $14,400 in electricity expenses, which is around 7.5 cents a kilowatt-hour. According toNashville Electric Service, Al’s power company. Al (says he) subscribes to “Green Power Switch“, the renewable option offered by NES. (Seems like a good program, btw.) Green Power Switch will sell you 150 kilowatt-hour blocks of power for an extra $4 charge - adding 2.67 cents per kwh to the ordinary 7.38 cents that NES charges residential customers. That’s 10.05 cents per kilowatt-hour. But the figures from Gore’s power bill, reported by the AP, show Gore paying about 7.5 cents a kilowatt-hour - pretty much exactly what he’d be paying if he bought his juice from the big coal-fired plant up the road. Something doesn’t add up, here. Either Gore is not, in fact, buying green power, or the AP has badly misreported his power usage over the last year, or perhaps there are special sweetheart deals available for “residential” customers who order enough juice to light up Versailles. Or - and please forgive the cynicism - Gore is buying a teeny weeny bit of green power - perhaps enough to account for the 0.12 cents per kwh disparity in the posted rate and his actual bill - and the rest of his “green power” offset is coming in the form of “investments” in various renewable energy companies. Which is all well and good, of course, but which is a far cry from having all your power be renewable, which is apparently the claim being made. http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/is-gores-electricity-100-green/ The TVA's Green Power Switch program has several solar generating sites. During the period of Nov. through Jan. those sites produced a total of 90,147kWh of power while the Gores averaged power usage for those months was 55,200kWh- likely closer to 60,000 because of increased winter power requirements even in mild TN. Put another way, one guy and his wife used two-thirds of TVA's total solar power production leaving roughly 30,000kWh for the other 5,999,998 TN residents to divide among themselves. Or put still another way, Gore and Trigger each used 30,000kWh ... leaving 5 watthours apiece for each remaining state resident. Five watthours will burn a 60W bulb for 12 minutes. (Note: TVA covers several states, not just TN... I didn't feel like doing the additional math. The bottom line is that the Gores sucked up about 2/3 of the solar power available in several southern states. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Although there are indeed some pundits from the right who seem to assume global warming is merely hype because Al Gore believes the issue is real, I do happen to believe this truly is a non-partisan issue and majorities among all political ideologies believe global warming is "probably happening" (about 80% polled recently believe it is probably happening, with 49% believing it is definitely happening) thus I believe most that are traditionally more on the right side of the aisle are far more fair-minded and flexible on the issue than some of these water-carriers in the establishment are. I regret that this thread has become more about Al Gore than about global warming. However, one interesting point was brought up which I feel is worth responding to. Post Gazette: August 3, 2006 It is curious, I believe, that many of the most outspoken detractors of both Al Gore and global warming in general are linked to oil companies and lobbying firms associated with them. Take, for instance, a YouTube video that surfaced last August spoofing Al Gore, characterizing Gore as a penguin and raising a "penguin army" in brainwashing Americans about the issue of global warming, suggesting that the Middle East crisis and Lindsay Lohan's anorexia are to be blamed by global warming. Interesting details of the creator's background are revealed via the link above: * "The video's maker is listed as "Toutsmith," a 29-year-old who identifies himself as being from Beverly Hills in an Internet profile. In an email exchange with The Wall Street Journal, Toutsmith didn't answer when asked who he was or why he made the video, which has just over 59,000 views on YouTube. However, computer routing information contained in an email sent from Toutsmith's Yahoo account indicate it didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement. Instead, the email originated from a computer registered to DCI Group, a Washington, D.C., public relations and lobbying firm whose clients include oil company Exxon Mobil Corp. A DCI Group spokesman declines to say whether or not DCI made the anti-Gore penguin video, or to explain why Toutsmith appeared to be sending email from DCI's computers. "DCI Group does not disclose the names of its clients, nor do we discuss the work that we do on our clients' behalf," says Matt Triaca, who heads DCI's media relations shop. Dave Gardner, an Exxon spokesman, confirms that Exxon is a client of DCI. But he says Exxon had no role in creating the "Inconvenient Truth" spoof. "We, like everyone else on the planet, have seen it, but did not fund it, did not approve it, and did not know what its source was," Mr. Gardner says." * Even if we can take and accept Gardner's word for it they weren't directly involved in the creation of the ad, the lobbying firm is nonetheless heavily linked to the attempted debunking of global warming: * "DCI is no stranger to the debate over global warming. Partly through Tech Central Station, an opinion Web site it operates, DCI has sought to raise doubts about the science of global warming and about Mr. Gore's film, placing skeptical scientists on talk-radio shows and paying them to write editorials." * Washington Post: November 24, 2006 Then there's the hypocrisy highlighted in the above editorial, where the National Science Teachers Association rejected the offering of DVD's of "An Inconvenient Truth" to use in their classroom studies because they didn't want to offer a "political" endorsement of the film, yet they've been frequently affliated with ExxonMobil, which has outspokenly denied global warming and has even offered to pay scientists if they reversed their position on global warming: * "That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits." ... "And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996, mostly for the association's "Building a Presence for Science" program, an electronic networking initiative intended to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" into schools, according to the NSTA Web site. Exxon Mobil has a representative on the group's corporate advisory board. And in 2003, NSTA gave the company an award for its commitment to science education." ... "In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school." * It gets more interesting still: * "NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called "Running on Oil" and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel," a shameless pitch for oil dependence. The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans. Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto." * Guardian Unlimited: February 2, 2007 And, as mentioned earlier, the attempt to pay scientists so that they would reverse their positioning on the global warming issue: * "Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered. The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment. The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees." * * This relates exactly to what I was talking about earlier; how Washington has become corrupted by special interest groups and lobbyists, and while the Democratic Party establishment has become hijacked and corrupted by organized labor activists and such in particular, the GOP establishment has become hijacked and corrupted by energy company activists and big oil interests, and so the GOP establishment has distanced itself from its core principles and roots of conservation and environmentalism. Richard Pombo is out, but you still have ghosts of Pombo resonating in the likes of James Inhofe and Mitch McConnell and John Doolittle and Deborah Pryce and Saxby Chambliss just to name a handful. It is saddening, and I truly believe most Republicans today hold values and ideals that differ from these interests, and rather go hand in hand with the conservation of both our traditions, ideals and environment. Ergo, I am optimistic that these genuine conservatives will take back the party from these interests and again practice what they preached in previous decades championing conservation, but sadly they still have some ways to go. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Let's keep in mind that China, ( which is expected to shortly surpass the United States as an emitter of green house gases, (and whose economy is just beginning to blossom), and India, which together represent over one third of the world's population and growing, (the West excluding immigration is in decline), is buying into none of this. . |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I haven't read all the other comments on this...but would simply like to contribute mine. What if there is nothing man can do to stop Global Warming? I mean, what if this is just a cycle of the Universe... Man seems to think, he is the cause of everything, and there is nothing he cannot do. Yet, man cannot 100% of the time predict an accurate weather report...and weather patterns are simply a part of the entire whole of things. I think, and believe man cannot control global warming...scientists predicted this years ago, when we were all kids...they knew then that if the temperatures shifted, it definately causes an effect on global weather. Is man then responsible for all the sun's solar explosions...? I mean, they are getting stronger and stronger all the time, matter of fact, just last week, the sun emitted solar explosions more powerful then any other time in history....can man control them? And do they have an extreme effect on not only global warming but our entire universe? Man cannot control everything, sorry to say...when something bad happens, we resort to instant gratification or quick fixes....and in this case, no matter what man does, if the earth is going to go thru another ice age, or violent earth quakes, none of which man has ever before seen, it's going to happen, no matter what we do. Also, when ever money comes into play, man will do what is best for his own personal resources and not the whole environment around him. We've had the technology for years to recyle and utilize technology that is out there and available to clean up things, but, unfortunatly this would empty the pockets of those who are flourishing financially from what is now presently going on. Man will be man's own demise...but in the end...global warming cannot be controled by man, caused by man, or stopped by man. Can we clean up our act, of course, there is always room for improvement, but will it effect global warming...NO...it will not. If the earth is going to explode or turn cold, there is nothing man can do but adapt or die. There are simply some things that man refuses to fathom and accept. Man has a very strong need to control...and you can't control everyone, what they think, how they feel, do you think man will control global warming and save the world. Global Warming is the result of the cycle of life, weather patterns. Earth is a star, and eventually all stars burn out. [This message has been edited by LeeJ (04-17-2007 12:50 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
