[SpeedHawk24]

Unless you count that year I wore short shorts.

[blizzardpoker]

I don't want my kids swimming in polluted water ways, I don't want to keep sending money to countries that want us all dead, I don't even want to see another McDonalds bag in the ditch as I drive by...and I'm just spit balling here, but I think 99.97% of the population agrees with me. My problem is; the same enviromentalist that were hammering spikes into trees are the same ones pushing global warming arguments. There is no mindful discussion they are willing to have, and believe me I've tried. They have a zero sum agenda that only has a winner and a loser...if they would drop the political arm of the agenda and start focusing on cleaner air and water and electric/hydrogen/fill in the blank cars, we could all have a level headed discussion that could make liberals and conservatives happy. But the tentacles, as I see it, want to roll "green" into a political opprotunity, which gets us back to fighting about liberal and conservative ideals.

[ddiction]

Originally Posted by theboat

Do you actually have anything to refute the facts that Beck puts forth, or is attacking the messenger the only way out?
How about any of the facts in these?

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story
Climate Change Fraud - The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7526

"By Sandor's reckoning, cap-and-trade represents a $10 trillion-per-year market. Recognizing the enormous profit potential, Generation Investment Management (GIM) – a carbon-offset company whose chairman and founding partner is Al Gore – purchased a 10 percent stake in CCX and became the company's fifth largest co-owner. In 2006, Goldman Sachs also purchased a 10 percent share of CCX."

Yeah, crazy to think that corruption could follow that kind of money.

I'll assume the facts are true because whether they are true or not has nothing to do with the point. So the promotion of green causes can be profitable. That should be a good thing, right? The scientific consensus about global warming has been there since the 50s and 60s, long before Obama and Gore had anything to do with green causes. Businesses view the acceptance of that consensus as a threat to their bottom line, so they naturally promote the refutation of that consensus, much like how tobacco companies funded their own "research" to try to say smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer. So because Nicorette makes loads of money from the consensus about the dangers of cigarettes, should the entire scientific consensus be dismissed as nothing more than "one side of the story" and the tobacco companies' research be given equal credibility just because it happens to be an opposing view, no matter how firmly the scientific community disagrees with it?

[H8IAST8]

Originally Posted by blizzardpoker

I don't want my kids swimming in polluted water ways, I don't want to keep sending money to countries that want us all dead, I don't even want to see another McDonalds bag in the ditch as I drive by...and I'm just spit balling here, but I think 99.97% of the population agrees with me. My problem is; the same enviromentalist that were hammering spikes into trees are the same ones pushing global warming arguments. There is no mindful discussion they are willing to have, and believe me I've tried. They have a zero sum agenda that only has a winner and a loser...if they would drop the political arm of the agenda and start focusing on cleaner air and water and electric/hydrogen/fill in the blank cars, we could all have a level headed discussion that could make liberals and conservatives happy. But the tentacles, as I see it, want to roll "green" into a political opprotunity, which gets us back to fighting about liberal and conservative ideals.

For the most part i think you are 99.97% correct, however the people on the other side, are some of the most powerful people in the world that will stop at nothing to have the staus quo. The CEO of International Coal (Massey Energy; you know the coal mine disaster in WV that killed 12 miners in 2006) pointed to the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows an unlimited amount of money to flow to political candidates without the public knowing who is behind the money or advertising until AFTER the election. Here is the letter targeting specific democratic candidates. Coal execs hope to spend big under new rules to defeat Conway and Chandler : Bluegrass Politics

Don Blankship CEO of Massey Energy: from the Daily Beast:
In 2004 he spent $3 million in advertising against a State Supreme Court Justice's re-election, drawing intense scrutiny after the judge who replaced him ruled in favor of throwing out a $50 million verdict against Massey. Four years later, Blankenship was photographed on the French Riviera with another State Supreme Court Justice, Elliott "Spike" Maynard, raising further ethics questions.

The DISCLOSE act in congress right now is out there to at least make the donations and money behind the advertising public knowledge. If this bill doesnt pass, you can bet that 75% of the political advertising and policital agendas will be paid for by huge corporations.

[theboat]

Originally Posted by ddiction

So the promotion of green causes can be profitable. That should be a good thing, right? The scientific consensus about global warming has been there since the 50s and 60s, long before Obama and Gore had anything to do with green causes.

Except that the profits will be made by a few at the expense of everyone else. I thought you were against stuff like that. Oh yeah, and the people that want cap and trade and this climate exchange admit that it will do NOTHING to lower emmissions. How is that a good thing? And remember, those that want redistribution do not believe on sovereign lines for that redistribution, therefore you could be the poorest of America, and still the richest of the world so prepare to bend over.

As for the 50s and 60s, if you believe that then you are just plain misinformed and you prove my point that this "consensus" has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Maybe they did talk about warming in the 50's, but in the 70's we were on the verge of an ice age.

The Global Cooling Scare Revisited (‘Ice Age' Holdren had plenty of company) — MasterResource

The temps go up? We are all going to die because of global warming.
The temps go down? We are all going to die because of global cooling.
The temps go up and down? We are all going to die because of climate change.
The temps don't change? Based on projections they should have changed, therefore we are all going to die because of the lack of change when it was expected.

It is the same argument over and over again, and it all goes back to the money. Follow the money, follow who is going to become uber rich based on this crap, and you have your answers.

[H8IAST8]

It is the same argument over and over again, and it all goes back to the money. Follow the money, follow who is going to become uber rich based on this crap, and you have your answers.
__________________

And who will be uber rich at keeping the status quo? BP, Massey Energy, Exxon, etc. etc. Would you rather have the uber rich who are responsible to the environment, or the uber rich who are not? It really is that simple. Look around you, oil is dirty, coal is dirty. Oil is responsible for alot of american deaths.

[theboat]

Originally Posted by H8IAST8

It is the same argument over and over again, and it all goes back to the money. Follow the money, follow who is going to become uber rich based on this crap, and you have your answers.
__________________

And who will be uber rich at keeping the status quo? BP, Massey Energy, Exxon, etc. etc. Would you rather have the uber rich who are responsible to the environment, or the uber rich who are not? It really is that simple. Look around you, oil is dirty, coal is dirty. Oil is the responsible for alot of american deaths.

I am all for alternative energy. But lets not shut down the energy we have until we actually have something to replace it. And we will just have to agree to disagree on the intentions of those that are set to make billions. They have one thing they are responsible to, and it is not the environment.

[H8IAST8]

As if the BP spill in the Gulf wasn't enough, the pipeline leaks in Utah, Alaska, etc go virtually unnoticed to the rest of the country. Hell one of the largest oil leaks EVER in the MIDWEST is gong on right now in Michigan!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us...an.html?src=mv
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. — Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm expressed growing worry on Wednesday that an oil spill, believed to be among the largest ever in the Midwest, might reach Lake Michigan if efforts to contain the oil were not strengthened.

Dave Jenkins helped clean a muskrat and other animals.
“It would be a tragedy of historic proportions if this reached Lake Michigan,” Ms. Granholm said.

[racerhawk]

Originally Posted by SpeedHawk24

Unless you count that year I wore short shorts.

Were they Jorts? Then, well, the mercury would be off the charts.

[sioux34]

Originally Posted by ddiction

The scientific consensus about global warming has been there since the 50s and 60s, long before Obama and Gore had anything to do with green causes.

I am really starting to think you don't have a clue on many of the topics you post about.

[racerhawk]

Originally Posted by ddiction

I'll assume the facts are true because whether they are true or not has nothing to do with the point. So the promotion of green causes can be profitable. That should be a good thing, right? The scientific consensus about global warming has been there since the 50s and 60s, long before Obama and Gore had anything to do with green causes. Businesses view the acceptance of that consensus as a threat to their bottom line, so they naturally promote the refutation of that consensus, much like how tobacco companies funded their own "research" to try to say smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer. So because Nicorette makes loads of money from the consensus about the dangers of cigarettes, should the entire scientific consensus be dismissed as nothing more than "one side of the story" and the tobacco companies' research be given equal credibility just because it happens to be an opposing view, no matter how firmly the scientific community disagrees with it?

Spot on. There are powerful, smart, connected folks who pay to have things discredited. These are the true "spin doctors" and it's virulent. Big businesses who make billions on the status quo (oil, coal, tobacco, etc) will do anything to keep their quarterly reports looking great. So, they spend a little bit of that vast pool of cash to share "their side of the story."

Look into who comprises the American Enterprise Institute. They fund a fair amount of this crap. Cheney is on their board. They have successfully muddied the waters, so to speak, on several issues. They're very good at what they do. Evil, but good at what they do.

I think that this whole issue is way too political, and there's no pulling it back. Most of us want alternative energy (I hope), and most of us want clean air and water).

It's surprising that decent, right wing folks aren't raising their eyebrows a little bit more these days with the mine disaster, the BP oil spill, the Michigan Oil spill, etc. I'm not sure why so many decent folks rush to steadfastly defend coporations that absolutely do not have America's best interests in mind. How quickly do we trust the BP's and the Goldman Sachs of the world? I say we should have a healthy mistrust of both government and multinational coporations. At least there is balance in that.

Why not aggressively pursue alternative energy? We're America. We invented Tang and Velcro. We can do anything.

[sioux34]

Velcro? Really?

The Invention of Velcro - George de Mestral

[theboat]

Originally Posted by racerhawk

Why not aggressively pursue alternative energy? We're America. We invented Tang and Velcro. We can do anything.

Don't forget the jorts.

I agree with you that we need to find better alternatives. I have never argued that our current energy is the "only" solution, just the best one that we have now. If we try to switch off of coal and oil without a viable alternative, our economy will be absolutely doomed. Of that there is no doubt.

[gamedayron]

Let capitalism work. Do not kill the economy forcing a situation. Build an electric car and give subsidies to entice people to buy it. Convert to wind, solar,and nuclear energy while using coal, oil, gas, and other sources of energy as wisely as possible. Use natural gas to power cars and trucks in the interum.
All green technonolgies will help, if they are introduced wisely.
There is a product out there that will save over 2,000 gallons of water per person, billions of blades, billions of metal shaving cream cans, and prevent billions of gallons of soapy water from going down the drain. This is just one product that will save billions of dollars worth of energy and landfills.
The base material may even be converted to a corn or soy bean by product.

[CFHawk]

I don't know but I like this hot weather.