Sea Demon, this is very, very tiring.

Yeah, there are lots of people who disagree. You're one of them. Unfortunately most of the people who know what they are talking about agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.
Cool. *waits*

You nailed it! Those small minds have a lot of money invested in fossil fuels and they won't give that money up easily. They will do whatever it takes to deny the truth.

All Gore is a great man. Anyone that belittles him is Afraid of him! That's too bad and very sad!

One note: This warming is taking place a faster pace than ever before. What use to take thousands of years is not happened much faster.

[quote=mookiemookie]
Pardon the copypasta, but you're off base here.

Not at all. They have their own opinions and biases on the issues. There are simply too many dissenting voices who have other opinions. The barn-burners in the "global warming" movement want to do alot of things, some of which may be harmful. Before you burn down the barn, there better be a darn good reason. And so far, the "global warming prophets" haven't done a very convincing job. Almost every tragedy brought along by these types of frauds in my lifetime have been nonsense, or just turned into the next tragedy of the day. The Ice Age of the 70's became global warming. In the 80's the acid rain was going to kill all our crops by the end of the century. There was a prediction in the 80's about how the oceans will be depleted in 10 years....and on.....and on....and on.......

Here's a good article by Mr. Buchanan on the topic:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=58279

I'm sure it is. :lol: Be prepared to be exhausted because millions don't believe the hype. In 10 years I predict that the "global warming" issue will turn into some other disaster to sell to the "idealistic" types always looking for tragedy....

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

There are meteorologists and other experts who would soundly disagree with you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

I wonder why Al Gore never goes into any open forum to debate anyone on the topic??:hmm:

And why does he own those really really big homes of his????? You do know how much his energy bills are for those home don't ya'???


An Inconvenient Utility Bill?? :lol:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...rld&id=5072659

Hmm...what reason could he have to disagree with environmentalists! :hmm:

Or is it that his own views, education, and his own observed facts just match those of the businesss sector. Which is....the world isn't going to end tragically because the warming fraudsters say so. He and the business types aren't the only ones who disagree with "big environmentalism". ;)

Lets look at these two experts.;)

Dennis T. Avery
He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.
He enjoys a high level of influence among some sectors, and his big-business-friendly articles are disseminated to thousands of newspapers as well as subscribers in governments, banks and businesses.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery

A pretty good enviromentalist plot :)
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html

Another nut job.
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Myths/2002-0120avery.htm

Avery makes a lot of noise about belonging to the Hudson Institute. Now lets look at a few corporations that contributes funds to the Hudson Institute:

Monsanto: Their leading products are the Roundup herbicide, PCBs, DDT, Aspartame. Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills.

Exxon Mobil

DuPont

Dow-Elanco: Agricultural Chemicals

American Crop Protection Association: Representing the manufacturers of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

CropLife International: A trade association representing the manufacturers of genetically engineered seed, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

Lets look at the other expert.

Siegfried Frederick Singer
In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

----------------------------------------------------
I just stopped any further research.

Two businesses are run out of his home. I can't think you can run businesses and live in a house without running up an electricity bill. Do you have an itemized bill of what items they run?

Well I don't think it helps your position when all you ever do is supply nut job links in support. I don't think you have ever supplied a link on this subject where your 'proof' hasn't been proved worthless. These last two experts of yours case in point.

Of course it matters not. Some of those who would "discredit" Avery are hacks for the environmental movement themselves, and are biased in it's view. Let's see Karen Charman, Theo Colborn???? Dianne Dumanowski??? All enviro-activist shills. You've got to take that with a grain of salt. Just read up on those people. I just did and saw that within 5 minutes..... None of them actually discredits anyone becaue they themselves are wrapped up in their own biases. Sorry, despite your hopes, many still don't believe your beliefs in "Global Doom".

That pretty much goes double for you. Almost every "global tragedy" source is a nut-job source. :doh: :rotfl::rotfl:

Uh-huh. Sure. I'm still impressed with his many homes and uses of private jets. My...here's a video of Gore polluting the atmosphere in a private jet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VV309lbB8c

He's not living a life he advocates for us. But then again, you willfully put the "blindfold of ignorance" over your own eyes. Some of us can see the fraud that Al Gore clearly is.

Here's some more disagreement. You can close your eyes and your mind if you'd like brad. :lol:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

Ok, then we bring up my favorite point...

So what? So what if it's wrong. You're looking for validation that it's ok to drive an SUV that's as big as a house? You looking for a salve on the soul for the fact that gosh darnit, plastic packaging is so convenient? You looking for the green light to think that pollutants in our streams and air is just a tradeoff for modern living?

Or is it maybe, just maybe, you can't stand the politics of Al Gore and are so caught up in the partisan "disagree at any costs" routine that you don't really know what you're arguing for anymore?

Actually it's much simpler than this mookie. There are people out there pushing the same old..."We're All Going To Die.....The Sky Is Falling!!!!!!!!" routine and promoting very draconian measures for something they have not proven. Nor is there any agreement whatsoever what causes all the fluctuations in temperatures. Fluctuations in temperatures that have preceded the SUV. By many many centuries. I don't think it's wise to listen to these alarmist voices (frauds if you will) as they've been wrong everytime they've pushed their "doom and gloom" scenarios during my lifetime. We can't afford what they want to do. And they offer no solutions other than burning down the proverbial barn. This is why I'm opposed.

And yes, there is actually more out there to support that termperature fluctuations have been ongoing during Earth's existence. This has not just been happening ever since Hummer started putting out the H2. Yes. I support clean air and clean water and such. I want pollution reduced. I support alternative sources of energy if it can be implemented and cost effective. But I also think that our production, technology, and Capitalism can co-exist with a clean environment. Al Gore types apparently do not and wish to use harsh measures to punish behaviors they don't agree with. And yes, Gore's hypocrisy by polluting with private jets, and living in large homes, and generating $30,000 a month utility bills kind of shows a major discrepency. His own "carbon footprint" exceeds my whole neighborhood. Do as I say....not as I do. Right??

BTW.....what Business's is Al Gore running from his home? Just what does he produce in goods or services out of his home???

If you can discredit one thing they've said please do. No, you can't? Only shoot the messenger if they are wrong.
I see you did your usual and ignored his Institute backing by Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, and a host of pesticide and chemical companies. You have heard of Monsanto haven't you?
You also forgot to back up Fredrick 'smoke isn't bad for you' Singer. Or his forgetfulness about working for the oil companies.

You're dodging brad. You have proven nothing about the messengers of the opponents of "Man-made global warming" theories except show people who are in bed with enviro-lunatics. You can't discredit anything about Avery. Nor can you discredit successfully any other dissenting voices. It doesn't matter anything about ExxonMobil or any other chemical companies. The burden of proof of man-made global warming is on the propponents. Something they have not proven. How come these lunatics refuse to see historical temperature fluctuations???? why is that?? Why does Al Gore refuse to debate in any open forum??? Using sources that are linked directly to the kooky environment movement won't get you far. Of course you have your google links and refuse to think for yourself. You post nutty links and have people like Theo Colborn, Karen Charmon, and Dianne Dumanowski do your thinking for you. The facts are, there are voices who don't buy man-made global warming. And those voices are growing. What you're concerned about is 30 years or more of fear-mongering is coming to an end.

Oh, so now he can't own more then one house. What is your reasoning for that? I hate to tell you you this but it's hard to make a donkey fly. Whats wrong with owning a private jet? I wouldn't mind one.