Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Global Warming?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Glassjaw View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Took down Mike Tyson

Joined: 13 July 2004
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 6454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Glassjaw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 8:36am
Originally posted by DeTrevni DeTrevni wrote:

It would almost seem skilled labor is where it's at these days. I'm going for machining, as I've said many times before.


Been working in my uncles manufacturing shop.  Pretty redundant work.
The desire for polyester is just to powerful.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 8:57am
As the government puts even more taxes on business (the backbone of our country) we will see less jobs from the business that is able to stay competitive...
 
In other words, good job all you who voted for Obama. You get no job... But, hey, free health care is right around the corner...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 9:42am
Jobs- currently the country is more than 100,000 over the road drivers short to maintain on time of all products. Driver recruiters from all the major company's struggle to get American drivers and have resorted to eastern europe and central america to fill the demand. Why is that?
I made upwards of $60K a year as a driver, the sacrifice was being away from home. As a driver training I could aways tell when Johnny Spoiledbutt was calling it quits, right after the call home during dinner at the truckstop, the sad eyes and the resulting quiet. And all I asked is what terminal do you want to be dropped at? There are jobs out there in the blue collar sector, but the average American coming out of school expects the 8-5, 60K job right out of the box. I can go back to work tomorrow driving OTR (but medically can not) and start off again at my standard monthly mileage at approximately $60K. I was willing to stay out 3 weeks plus 4 days off, to get my minimum 12K miles per month, sacrifice for success, what a concept for the new generations to accept.

BTW- seriously looking at modifying the rules to fit the situation to get back out on the road. I enjoyed the work in my RV with an income, and I am bored to tears and so frustrated not able to work. Called Crete Carriers and they were willing to do whatever it took (ie schedule my hometime around my VA appointments) to get me and Duke back in one of thier trucks.

And now a 5.3% surtax on success, lets see if congress with a(D) pays the same surtax, thank god for Obama and the Democrat led congress, Lenin and Marx would be proud, dismantling capitalism one brick at a time..

Edited by oldsoldier - 15 July 2009 at 9:47am
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 9:56am
I pay over $6,000 a month now for my electric at my business.
 

I hate to see what it will go up to under "cap and trade"...

 

but, I guarantee I will have to cut another employee, because the well is dry. If I can't make money, I'm cutting payroll.

 

 

And next is health care... I'm sure in the next month they can figure out all the problems and write a bill that will fix everything and have us all paying less...

 

 

NOT!

 

Good thing we have...

 

]


Edited by Evil Elvis - 15 July 2009 at 10:19pm
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 10:29am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:



In all honesty, I would have watched this video if I wasn't bombarded by Glenn Beck.

I have heard enough stupid crap out of that mans mouth that I don't feel the need to listen.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 12:02pm
Ah, yes.  Chris Horner of the "Competitive Enterprise Institute," the think tank funded in no small part by ExxonMobil and other oil companies, as well as coal companies and car companies.  CEI has been on a mission to fight science for some time.
 
I am glad you brought up Horner and the CEI.
 
Where to start... 
 
The CEI led the charge against CAFE standards (mileage minimums for cars), and against warning labels on drugs (CEI is also funded by pharmaceutical companies), and against nutritional labels on food.  Here is a fascinating internal CEI document on the subject and on "recharacterizing" health risks generally:  http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ewt22d00/pdf;jsessionid=3311457D866B742A442C385F6A176F7E
 
Oh, and a search on CEI and tobacco gives results that would impress even Nick Naylor (yep - also funded by tobacco companies).
 
The list goes on.  Bottom line:  CEI isn't a "think tank" of any kind, but a marketing company currently on the payroll of the oil and coal companies, and as a result CEI has zero credibility on this issue.
 
Yes, global warming deniers - THESE are your champions.
 
But let's not stop with credibility.  In this clip there are (unsurprisingly) more canards being repeated.
 
For instance, for the early few minutes Horner mentions repeatedly how it is cooler now than "when Bush entered office" and various other versions of that.
 
This is a classic - some enterprising deniers even have charts and graphs showing decline in global temperature, but with the date labels in very small print.  This because the current decline goes back to about 2000, and eight years is not exactly a good basis for weather projections.  If you zoom out as far as the data will go you see a consistent warming trend that is not undone by the current blip.  That of course is omitted.
 
Horner talking about how it is cooler now than in 2000 is about as useful as OS talking about how it is raining in NY.  It just isn't relevant, and it is intentionally misleading.
 
And then there are the abortions.  Ah, yes - the abortions.  Guaranteed to stoke irrational outrage since 1973.  This is really brilliant.  Basically, the argument goes like this:  "If we go to a 'green' economy, we will be paying Chinese people to have abortions, and global warming must therefore be false."
 
Wait, what?
 
First off, there is the glaring logical error.  Even if a green economy did lead to more abortions, that has no impact on the scientific reality of global warming.  Unpleasant results do not change science.
 
But, of course, this is just more fear-mongering by Horner.  It is certainly true that having a child is a very environmentally unfriendly thing to do, but only the loonie-left extremists have suggested any type of policy on this basis.  And the China carbon credit angle?  I have been unable to get this from any other source than Horner himself so far.  I wouldn't be surprised if China has requested or will request some credit for its population control policies, but it is a long way from there to Horner's statement. 
 
This is emotion-stoking and fear-mongering.  Classic moves for a lobbyist from a marketing company.  Entirely inappropriate for a discussion about science.
 
I could go on, but good lord it is exhausting.  Four minutes into the video and I am already worn out.  I will watch the rest later.
 
But the bottom line again is that the CEI is an excellent example of what comes from the deniers' camp:  hired guns with misleading statements and irrelevant emotional appeals.  Did you hear any science in that clip?  No?  Me neither.
 
(At least not in the first four minutes)
 
 
Yes, global warming deniers - THESE are your champions.  And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

As a driver training I could aways tell when Johnny Spoiledbutt was calling it quits, right after the call home during dinner at the truckstop, the sad eyes and the resulting quiet. And all I asked is what terminal do you want to be dropped at? There are jobs out there in the blue collar sector, but the average American coming out of school expects the 8-5, 60K job right out of the box.
 
I am usually very skeptical of the "zomg the utes of today" position, but I tend to agree with this statement.  I think we have overemphasized college in the last generation or two, and coupled that overemphasis with a sense of entitlement to a cushy high-paying office job.  I am always astonished at the astonishment of new college grads wondering why they can't get a sweet job with their degree in art history.
 
The good news, I think, is that this is about to change - at least the sense of entitlement.  I see more white-collar folk taking lower-paid blue-collar jobs as reality sets in, and while that can be rough for the individual, I think it is probably a healthy development for society.  Unfortunately, I think the Obama administration is still pushing "college for all," so I don't think we are out of the woods yet.
 
The bad news, however, is that this sense of entitlement is not new.  This particular shade of entitlement may be new, but I point to Flint, MI, as an example of older-style entitlement, where people flat refuse to even look for work outside of their little town.  Those folk have a sense of entitlement to a conveniently located job.  Same problem, different flavor.  So even if we beat the current problem of precious snowflakes, I suspect we will find another way to entitle ourselves into oblivion.
 
*sigh*
 
 
 
Oh, and there are more posts in a row coming from me.  What can I say - I'm a shark.  So ...  yeah.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 12:30pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

I pay over $6,000 a month now for my electric at my business.
 
I hate to see what it will go up to under "cap and trade"...
 
Actually, we have had cap and trade in place for years.  It is reflected in your electric bill.
 
Oh, you meant cap and trade for CO2 emissions?  Ah - I thought you meant cap and trade for SO2.  I was off by a letter.
 
No biggie - we all remember the devastating impacts on the economy when SO2 caps were instituted, right?  Right?  And we all remember the HUGE increases in our electric bills, right?  RIGHT?
 
 
 
Quote
And next is health care... I'm sure in the next month they can figure out all the problems and write a bill that will fix everything and have us all paying less...
 
 
NOT!
 
 
Ah, yes - "NOT!"
 
From the Borat School For Kids That Can't Debate Good.
 
In any event, we have been through this before.  The US has the most expensive health care system in the world, by a very large margin, and it is getting worse - while at the same time providing inferior care.  We are on an unsustainable path, and radical change is needed. 
 
Sadly, however, I think you are correct, in the sense that Congress lacks the political will for true change here and will chicken out.  We will end up tinkering around the edges of the monstrosity.  Costs may go up, they may go down, but this will not be the changes we are looking for.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 12:33pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

As the government puts even more taxes on business (the backbone of our country) we will see less jobs from the business that is able to stay competitive...
 
 
 
I could have sworn that ARRA included a whole bunch of tax cuts.  Did I miss something?  Was there a massive tax increase that I didn't hear about?

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2981
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Still bored,


Troll this stuff somewhere else then. Or at least bring something new.

But for now, refute:

Quote

Frank R. Lichtenberg
27 June 2009

Many healthcare policymakers and analysts are focused on controlling rising medical costs. Is attacking high-cost, low-benefit medical innovation a solution? This column estimates that medical innovation – the use of advanced diagnostic imaging, newer drugs, and higher-ranked physicians – significantly increases life expectancy without raising medical expenditures per capita.


The cost of medical care continues to rise rapidly in the US and other industrialised countries. According to a report from consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, US employers who offer health insurance coverage could see a 9% cost increase between 2009 and 2010, and their workers may face an even larger increase.

Some observers argue that rapidly increasing health care expenditure is due, to an important extent, to medical innovation – the development and use of new drugs, diagnostics, and procedures. For example, the Kaiser Family Foundation (2007), citing Rettig (1994), claims that “advances in medical technology have contributed to rising overall US health care spending.”

Other observers argue that most medical innovations do not improve people’s health. Lexchin (2004), for example, claims that “at best one third of new drugs offer some additional clinical benefit and perhaps as few as 3% are major therapeutic advances.”

If both of these claims were true, medical innovation would result in the worst of both worlds – a large increase in cost and little or no increase in benefit (in the form of improved health outcomes). However, a study that I have recently performed casts considerable doubt on both of these claims. My findings indicate that medical innovation has yielded significant increases in life expectancy without increasing medical expenditure.

My study (Lichtenberg 2009) examines the effect of the quality of medical care, behavioural risk factors, and other variables on life expectancy and medical expenditure using longitudinal state-level data. As shown in Figure 1, the rate of increase of longevity has varied considerably across US states since 1991.

Figure 1. Increase in life expectancy at birth 1991-2004, by state

I examined the effects of three different measures of the quality of medical care. The first is the average quality of diagnostic imaging procedures, defined as the fraction of procedures that are advanced procedures. The second is the mean vintage (FDA approval year) of outpatient and inpatient prescription drugs. The third is the average quality of practicing physicians, defined as the fraction of physicians that were trained at top-ranked medical schools.

I also examined the effects on longevity of three important behavioural risk factors – obesity, smoking, and AIDS incidence – and other variables – education, income, and health insurance coverage – that might be expected to influence longevity growth. My econometric approach controlled for the effects of unobserved factors that vary across states but are relatively stable over time (e.g. climate and environmental quality), and unobserved factors that change over time but are invariant across states (e.g. changes in federal government policies).

The gains from medical innovation

The indicators of the quality of diagnostic imaging procedures, drugs, and physicians almost always had positive and statistically significant effects on life expectancy. Life expectancy increased more rapidly in states where (1) the fraction of Medicare diagnostic imaging procedures that were advanced procedures increased more rapidly, (2) the vintage of self- and provider-administered drugs increased more rapidly, and (3) the quality of medical schools previously attended by physicians increased more rapidly.

Between 1991 and 2004, life expectancy at birth increased 2.37 years. The estimates imply that, during this period, the increased use of advanced imaging technology increased life expectancy by 0.62-0.71 years, use of newer outpatient prescription drugs increased life expectancy by 0.96-1.26 years, and use of newer provider-administered drugs increased life expectancy by 0.48-0.54 years. The decline in the average quality of medical schools previously attended by physicians reduced life expectancy by 0.28-0.47 years.

The availability of data from Australia’s universal health care system, Medicare Australia, allowed me to provide some additional evidence about the impact of advanced imaging technology on mortality. I estimated difference-in-difference models of the effect of advanced imaging innovation on age-specific mortality rates. Demographic groups that had above-average increases in the number of advanced imaging procedures per capita had above-average declines in mortality rates, but changes in mortality rates were uncorrelated across demographic groups with changes in the number of standard imaging procedures per capita. Estimates of the effect of diagnostic imaging innovation on longevity based on Australian data are quite consistent with estimates based on US data.

The increased fraction of the population that was overweight or obese, rising from 44% to 59%, reduced the increase in life expectancy by .58-.68 years. The decline in the incidence of AIDS is estimated to have increased life expectancy by .18-.20 years. The small decline in smoking prevalence may have increased life expectancy by about 0.10 years.

Growth in life expectancy was uncorrelated across states with health insurance coverage and education, and inversely correlated with per capita income growth. The 19% increase in real per capita income is estimated to have reduced life expectancy by .34-.43 years. The sum of the contributions of all of the factors to the increase in life expectancy is in the 0.85-1.32 year range. Consequently, between 1.05 and 1.52 years of the 2.37-year increase in life expectancy is unexplained.

Greater coverage, lower costs

Although states with larger increases in the quality of diagnostic procedures, drugs, and physicians had larger increases in life expectancy, they did not have larger increases in per capita medical expenditure. This may be the case because, while newer diagnostic procedures and drugs are more expensive than their older counterparts, they may reduce the need for costly additional medical treatment. The absence of a correlation across states between medical innovation and expenditure growth is inconsistent with the view that advances in medical technology have contributed to rising overall US health care spending. Increased health insurance coverage is associated with lower growth in per capita medical expenditure.


http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3707

Enjoy.
Can I have some red sauce for that copy pasta?
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2981
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

Wait, people are STILL stupid enough to call it global warming, and believe that's what it is?

Are you kidding me OS? How many times have we corrected you on this?
Well, the libs did change the terminology when their argument started losing steam.  Global Warming is now Climate Change, so that way if it goes one way or another, they can't be wrong.  LOL
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2981
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by Benjichang Benjichang wrote:

OBAMA IS RUINING OUR LIVES
Only if you are the 'haves'.  The 'have-nots' are drooling in anticipation.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 1:06pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Remember how the world was going to end because of the ozone layer in our atmosphere (another one claimed to be caused by mans use of hairspray...) Well that crisis passed, and they needed another to generate income.
 
Global warming (which since the earth is now cooling, they have to change the name...) is the next scam.
 
 
And acid rain.  You forgot acid rain.
 
Good lord - your posts are like a list of Greatest Canards.
 
Here - I will give the quick and easy answers.  Let me know which ones you need more info about (of course, this could all be had with a quick visit to google):
 
Volcanos:  Put out only a tiny fraction of the amount of CO2 emitted by humans.
 
Current cooling trend:  Short blip when viewed against longer time horizon.
 
Sun spots/solar cycles:  These cycles are well known, and have been worked into the models.
 
Acid rain:  Thanks to aggressive regulation and a cap and trade system for SO2 implemented in 1990 (cap and trade in the US - other countries took different approaches), emissions of acid rain-causing chemicals has fallen drastically, and acid rain is no longer a real problem in most of North America or Western Europe. 
 
Ozone layer:  Thanks to aggressive regulation and a cap and trade system for NOx implemented in 1999, emission of ozone layer-depleting chemicals has fallen drastically (in the US and some other countries), the ozone layer depletion is slowing, and there are signs of recovery.  This crisis has not yet passed, but it is getting there - specifically due to aggressive regulation and cap and trade.
 
Global cooling:  This was an over-hyped hypothesis in the 70s.  It never reached any type of scientific consensus.  Claiming that the current well-supported warming theory is wrong simply because of a prior discretited cooling hypothesis is incorrect and unsupported.
 
 
Every power plant built in the US today has to have "BACT" - Best Available Control Technology - emission controls, including controls specifically targeted at SO2 and NOx.  Both SO2 and NOx allowances are traded in regional "airshed" markets.  These emission controls and the allowance markets have been smash successes.   Yet somehow both acid rain and ozone layer depletion somehow routinely get raised as arguments AGAINST global warming.  Truly impressive spin mastery.
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 1:09pm
I wish they would just call this what it is...
 
 
Reparations.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 1:33pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

I wish they would just call this what it is...
 
 
Reparations.


Now THAT is an impressive non sequitur.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you aren't going to actually respond to my fact-laden posts, but still allow me to be the first to say:  "huh?"

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 1:52pm

Lets look at the facts. I don't have time to go through your list of sketchy "pseudo science".

 
Just read the book. "Red Hot Lies"...
 
How much money has al gore made from "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever he is calling his scam now?
 
Obama is forcing through reparations. "white mans greed runs a world in need"...
 
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor. When you pay for things by taxing one group differently than others by definition you are giving reparations.
 
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 2:51pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Lets look at the facts. I don't have time to go through your list of sketchy "pseudo science".

Hey, I went through your pseudo-science - the least you could do is return the favor.  But I suspect you will find my science less pseudo, and my sources more reliable...

Like the US Geological Survey describing volcanic emissions - pseudo-science?


And, of course, not everything I posted was science - pseudo or otherwise - like noting that there are already several environmental cap and trade systems in place, none of which have ruined the economy.

I can see why you wouldn't want to go through that list.



Quote
Just read the book. "Red Hot Lies"...


I might - my plate is slightly full at the moment, but I do enjoy the occasional political piece.  Check back in a month or two.
 

Quote How much money has al gore made from "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever he is calling his scam now?


Wow - talk about a compound question assuming facts not in evidence.  Impressive.  Did you stop beating your wife before or after you embezzled the company?

But I will break it down:

1.  All of the profits from "An Inconvenient Truth," both book and movie, are donated to an educational campaign.  Al Gore gets nothing.

2.  Gore does have substantial investments in "green" companies, and he will presumably benefit financially from these investments if greenery becomes more popular.  But these investments are quite recent (GIS was formed in 2004, for instance), and Gore's dedication to climate change issues goes back to the 70s.  That is a heck of a long time to lay a plan.  Since Gore has spent much of his life in political office his financials were fairly public until quite recently.  As a result there are few surprises.  The whole "this is a get-rich scheme by Al Gore" theory rests on the belief that Al Gore spent 30 years of underpaid work in the government just so he could set up his green investing company after losing the Presidential election. 

3.  Most successful politicians cash in after leaving office.  If anything, Al Gore could be making FAR more money if he had chosen just about anything else to do.  Bill Clinton is getting tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak - Al Gore is doing it for free.  If this is a profiteering scheme, it is the worst.profiteering.scheme.ever.

4.  Global warming/climate change is not "his" scheme.  Al Gore is not a scientist, and does not pretend to be.  The science exists independently of Al Gore and his movie.  Discovering incorrect statements in the movie does not affect the underlying science.

5.  And that is a key point.  There is volumes upon volumes of science behind current global warming theory.  Science put forth by scientists.  Most of the noise being made about global warming is being made by scientists - mostly the same scientists doing the science.  Yes, there are some high-profile non-scientist spokesmen (like Al Gore), and yes, there is a signficant non-scientific hippie/political movement pushing as well, but on the whole it is a science-driven movement.  

6.  ON THE OTHER HAND, the no-global-warming crowd consists mostly of politicians, industry lobbyists, and crackpots.  There are certainly some legitimate scientists with legitimate scientific questions and concerns - and those concerns are heard.  I have no beef with them or their research.  The science on global warming is not a bedrock solid as some other scientific theories, and there is plenty of work left to be done.  But those scientists are the minority, and a fairly quiet minority, of the no-warming crowd.  They are drowned out by industry hacks like Horner, who intentionally spouts what he must know to be untrue, drowned out by media hacks like Rush Limbaugh, who will say whatever is the opposite of the last thing he heard a Democrat say, and drowned out by political hacks like Inhofe, who will say whatever his biggest campaign donors tell him to.  The two do not compare.


Quote
Obama is forcing through reparations. "white mans greed runs a world in need"...
 
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor. When you pay for things by taxing one group differently than others by definition you are giving reparations.


That makes absolutely no sense.  Reparations for... what?

And, BTW, your definition of "reparations" is really just "taxes."  Almost by definition, virtually all taxes amount to a redistribution of wealth.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 3:13pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Did you stop beating your wife before or after you embezzled the company?


 
wow... nice personal attack there... Guess you can go back to talking to yourself again...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 3:24pm
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
-Adam Savage or FreeEnterprise?
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2009 at 3:25pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Did you stop beating your wife before or after you embezzled the company?
 
wow... nice personal attack there... Guess you can go back to talking to yourself again...


He used that sentence to illustrate the silliness of your question. Don't look at it as a personal attack, look at it as a parallel to your compounded question based on assumptions that he hopes will help you recognize the problem with your question while prefacing an actual response.

I have a question, though. Are you like this in real life? If you were in a meeting of some sort and one of your peers said something that you misunderstood and you became offended, would you pull the "I DUN WANNA PLAY ANYMORE" card? Do you stoop below the professionalism of others in the workplace in response to something you don't like? You seem like a semi-successful businessman, so I am assuming this sort of incredulity you exhibit is purely an internet phenomenon.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.