Algore is going to capitol hill to gain support for all of his global warming ideas.
Drudge has advanced copies of questions some committe members might ask...
How would you answer these libs?
Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.
Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?
Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?
Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Some great questions awaiting Gore
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Here's another one,
Mr. Gore, it's been shown that the earth has gone through several natural warming & cooling cycles through out the history of earth. Why are we to believe that these cycles have suddenly stopped, and greedy Wal-Mart-hooked Americans are responsible for this latest heating cycle? Hmmm?
F'ing retards! I wish I was an Amway salesman in their neck of the woods.
OK, I'm being facetious, why is it Jim/Vital/Jay that you're so willing to believe this pap? If a conservative was using this as a reason to control/regulate so much of our lives, you'd all be shouting revolution from the rooftops. Jeez, show a litlle consistancy and backbone for once in your lives.
Game
You'll never get a straight answer from libweenies on the "over" population subject.
Let me do this one for Jim...(with no facts or no actual comment)
You neo-cons...everyone else is wacko who doesn't believe what you think
ha
Regarding #1: Absurd question. The man you cited in question #3 says "about a decade." About 10 years for wing nuts. Really, really stupid question.
Regarding #2: Really, really stupid question. Nobody has said that global warming is always caused by humans. And nobody has ever said that there haven't been periods of significant heating and cooling on earth. However, a vast majority of experts agree that global warming at this time is primarily caused by human activity. Mars, Jupiter? Absurd.
Regarding #3: Good question.
Regarding #4: Good question
Blamin'...what is all this "control" and "regulation" you are talking about?
Game, you are the one who is calling people wackos, so get your finger out of my face.
We just moved to Tennessee, and it's a great state. I sure as hell hope he doesn't screw it up with his lunatic blathering. Sadly, there are a few who buy into his fantasies. :/
Blamin, let me ask a different question:
Regardless of whether you believe current warming is caused by human activity in whole or in part, do we, as humans, have any responsibility for the stewardship of the planet? In other words, maybe cutting our CO2 emissions won't stop or slow warming, but shouldn't we be concerned about changing the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere anyway?
Or think about what we know--with far more certainty than warming, even--to be the effects of pollutants on rates of asthma in children, mercury in the fish we eat, or on patterns of rainfall around mountains. Don't we have any responsibility to ensure that our human activity does no harm in those cases, to ameliorate the real effects of pollution that have nothing to do with warming?
And, if, by taking measures to address pollution and its other effects, we slow warming, wouldn't that be a good thing?
question one is simply showing how stupid algore's "the sky is falling" mentality is...
question two is VERY legit...but only to people who understand how research is supposed to work...
Jay demostrates the liberal mindset whereby you must take unproven hypotheticals as fact. What if I came up with a valid study showing we'd have less violence in schools if the liberals in teaching and administration had to submit to a 10 minute beating daily in order to keep their job. That scenario is just as valid as Jay's GW hysteria.
Jay,
What you speak of is a totally different issue unrelated to whether Gore's fear-mongering is truth or speculation. His sky-is-falling rhertoric is expected to convince the business world to adjust their practices to reduce that which is unproven. Consider that alone and how illogical it is. (It's what comes from politicians never really experiencing the business world.) Why would a business risk it's purpose, to create wealth, over something so speculative. Yet, it is Gore's intention that businesses be forced if necessary by law to make those adjustments.
To your question, of course it makes sense to consider the ramifications of one's actions and businesses are no different. A better way to persuade, however, is with actual fact, not hyperbolic fantasy and conjecture, and by the consumers of its goods to persuade by withholding their patronage. Others have looked at the hype and decided to play it safe and make changes on their own, and the DiCaprio's of the world look upon them with favor. In other words, it became for them a good business decision.
In our personal lives, we all have a duty of good stewardship and a duty to admonish those we know who do things such as litter, waste and generally muck up the place. This is all well and good and I support it entirely. What I don't support is those like Gore who make unsubstantiated claims about consensus for that which has no consensus in order to scare up votes.
Marshall said, "Why would a business risk it's purpose, to create wealth, over something so speculative."
Gee, I don't know. Uh let's see...
Companies going green with energy alternatives
Wal-Mart embraces environmental sustainability:
"In October 2005, CEO Lee Scott presented an environmental plan to boost energy efficiency, increase organic food sales, and reduce waste and greenhouse gases emissions. Scott told reporters that the world's largest retailer had to be a 'good steward for the environment' and believed that adopting greener practices would also be good for business by cutting costs."
BP today announced it has selected the University of California Berkeley and its partners the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to join in a $500 million research program that will explore how bioscience can be used to increase energy production and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment.
From Business Week": How top companies are reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases:
"Citigroup (C ) is working with Fannie Mae (FNM ) to encourage sales of energy-efficient homes. IBM (IBM ) saved hundreds of millions of dollars by cutting energy use, while Unilever managed to slash its greenhouse gas output by more than 10% in a single year."
From Inc.com, The Green 50.
Shall I go on?
Well, there is a big difference between the diversity and innovation of competitive markets, and the one size fits all regimented military approach government inexorably takes when it gets involved in economic matters.
The marketplace encourages experimentation; the government often squashes it-- look at what is happening in education, or health care.
You're jumping the gun here, Jason. So far there is little if ANY government involvement. Almost all activity is academic and commercial.
You want to pooh pooh these efforts because you THINK the government might quash innovation?
Jim--
Thinking is a much better guide to truth than feeling.
Your post above proves my point. Businesses will innovate if it is rational to do so. Whenever a green proposal is rejected by a company, Dems don't look at consumer demand or technological plausibility-- they always act like it is a conspiracy by the greedy rich against the Proletariat. Democrats want to force consumers and businesses to adopt a monolithic approach to the future because they are tyrannical socialists with an infinite lust for power.
Absolutely. And Jim has made my point with his links. These companies have chosen on their own to make the changes they have based on their assumptions, rightly or wrongly, that they will benefit financially by doing so. It's a bit different than being forced to do so, when being forced might not take into consideration the costs involved. Some companies may CHOOSE to make changes even in the face of profit losses due to their own sense of right and wrong. That's perfectly fine and I hope their choice works out.
But for some companies, turning off the lights sooner might not benefit their operation. It may in fact cause problems that result in job losses. (Don't ask me how. It's irrelevant to the notion of the Gore-ites forcing changes as opposed to companies choosing to do so.) It isn't feasible for all companies. Would any of the companies you've highlighted made those changes if profits were adversely affected? Probably not in most cases. I applaud those who find a way to work cleaner, but I don't condemn those who won't risk their situation to appease the alarmists.
You probably have better sources than I do Marshall, but I can't seem to find any place where Gore has insisted that anyone should live like the unabomber as you wing nuts claim.
And I believe the thrust of Gore's argument is that the Government should support and incent efforts to find fuel alternatives, energy-saving practices, reduction in carbon-emitting energy use. Where is he saying that businesses MUST act in a way that will jeopardize their profits.
You know, this is a silly argument to me and is not so much about global warming as a basic difference in the liberal/conservative debate. You prefer a nation of 300 million self regulating individuals and I prefer organizing our society democratically to move us forward. You might want to live in the past or hold on to the status quo. It is a typical conservative trait in the strictest sense. I'm not like that...so hate me.
Well that's just plain silly, Ron. Business people are in business for what? To make money. Nothing wrong with that at all. The best way to make businesses conform to some new thought is to patronize those that already do or are willing to do so. If no one is, the consumer will eventually make their wishes known and some entrepreneur will act on it. This is how the market works best. This is how innovation occurs. It does not occur through pressure from governmental dictates such as what the greenies would prefer. And if you or Jim doesn't think ol Al has no problem mandating restrictions and regulations upon businesses to conform to his religion of global warming alarmism, you ain't paying attention. It's what he's on about. It's how he will save the world from itself. If he thinks GW is more a threat than Islamic terror, which he does, then he's cast himself as the savior and forcing businesses will be a no brainer the more people swallow his rhetoric.
BTW, all should check out Jason's blog, ChicagoCon and view the video rebutting the Al Bore crapola. It's long, so pop some corn and enjoy. Quite enlightening.
Post a Comment