Gore skeptical of 'clean coal' in Dominican address

[Joe]

I am sure al bore is "skeptical" of anything that he doesn't stand to make billions off of, the man is nothing more than a clown with his hand out to steal billions of dollars without a gun.
There IS NO MANMADE CLIMATE change, NONE, didn't happen, these were the same clowns that were in a panic telling us 30 years ago that we were all going to die from global cooling.
The weather just goes in a cycle, alway's has alway's will, nothing to pee in your pants about, things will be fine, the polar bears will be fine, with the cooling we have had since 1996 they have had a lot more ice to play on, remember the weather goes in cycles, that follow the solar cycles pretty close, most of the smart people have known that for years.

[travis]

Joe wrote:

I am sure al bore is "skeptical" of anything that he doesn't stand to make billions off of, the man is nothing more than a clown with his hand out to steal billions of dollars without a gun.
There IS NO MANMADE CLIMATE change, NONE, didn't happen, these were the same clowns that were in a panic telling us 30 years ago that we were all going to die from global cooling.
The weather just goes in a cycle, alway's has alway's will, nothing to pee in your pants about, things will be fine, the polar bears will be fine, with the cooling we have had since 1996 they have had a lot more ice to play on, remember the weather goes in cycles, that follow the solar cycles pretty close, most of the smart people have known that for years.

Careful - that's dangersous talk. You're setting yourself up for a re-education camp with the other "flat earthers". Someone is likely to email the White House about heretics like you.

[travis]

Meant "dangerous".

[record debt obama]

Billionaire, Al Hore, has just identified the problem that the rest of America has known for 50 years. Private industry lacks the money to develop clean and renewable energy and its up to the government to foot the bill. This is exactly what industry has asked for and Congress has ignored ever since the Kennedy administration. Congress has always wasted its money on entitlement programs instead of supporting American heavy industry and utility research & infrastructure. Now, after most American heavy industry has packed up and moved to China the government wants to invest in technology. Trouble is, the government has no money. obama has already sunk the US into record debt and that debt will increase for the next decade. obama has wasted even more money on entitlement programs and extremely little on energy and technology.
Where is Al Hore's money coming from for new energy technology? More taxes, more debt, more empty promises, more lies.

[required]

Rational approach wrote:

How about the time period when Greenland was so lush and green that they named it "Greenland"?

Too funny and the fact is they didn't. Greenland is also called Erik the Red's Land, Gruntland, Ground-land, etc.

And about it being green (the southern portion actual is in the summer) like you seem to have presumed - some scientists probed two kilometers through a glacier there to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of plants and insects from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago.

That view contrasts with the prevailing one that a lush forest could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago.

I would totally love for you to elaborate on how exactly you feel back 450,000 to 900,000 years ago (or as other scientist believe 2.4 million years ago) was in any way comparable to our fossil fuel era (the last ~100 years).

I look forward to your response.

[required]

Rational approach wrote:

...firefighting...

You seem to be more than a little myopic. Fact is more fires have started everywhere with and without firefighting (worldwide aka beyond the states). Still benumbed? Take a look at Australia (fyi it's a different continent) or give Africa a look see.

Now in response to that fun fire stat. It is certainly due to many factors including greed (arson), carelessness, mismanagement, and whatnot but it is simply daft to assume that our climate doesn't play a key role. Note: droughts tend to dry things out.

[required]

record debt obama wrote:

record debt

Bush bailed out the failed automobile and banking industries by tossing them our money without any questions or any oversight, in fact no one knows where all of that money went (same as with his "wars" lots of missing money, but I digress). Obama introduced oversight and now you wingers speak out in contempt. May I ask why you were silent before?

I think it must be shadow projection:

"That is why he is the out of control spender when they sat on their hands through all of Bush's malfeasance. That is why his talking to schoolchildren is dangerous when our government wiretapping its citizens wasn’t. That is why saving the financial system from years of Republican regulation is taking away our future. The more evil revealed about the right’s excesses on torture, or wars of choice, or nearly destroying the economy, the more evil Obama will look in their eyes, as they cannot tolerate owning responsibility, because in their own minds they are only good. " http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_dai...

by the way just so we are clear: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closi...

[required]

record debt obama wrote:

Private industry lacks the money to develop clean and renewable energy...

I disagree.

[required]

Joe wrote:

There IS NO MANMADE CLIMATE change

You're clearly a click past unconscious (torpid "caps lock" comatose). Sticking your head in the sand yelling at yourself that it's natural and not at all related to our daily ignitions. Just to be clear, the US alone ignites roughly four hundred twenty million (420,000,000) gallons of petroleum a day. If it helps to have a visual, think of 55,556 12'x24'x4' deep swimming pools full of gas being set a blaze every day of the year. Or simply visualize a sea of fire that goes up into the atmosphere daily. It is totally unsustainable and very insane and then there is all of the coal that we burn daily as well…

About that coal, in 2002 USA burnt through 1,065 million short tons of it. By the way that year we also ignited 23,020 billion cubic feet of natural gas (and we burn more today than ever). Then there are all of the biofuels such as wood, waste, ethanol, so on and so forth we burn through. We burn a lot of stuff, that in conjunction with nature (forest fires, volcanoes, and whatnot) makes a superabundance of atmospheric carbon.

Now that we have looked at some of what we burn, how about those things that remove atmospheric carbon that we are quickly destroying such as coral reefs and rainforests. All major tropical forests including those in the Americas, Africa, Southeast Asia, and Indonesia are rapidly being set ablaze to make way for cattle and the ilk.

Are these things really sustainable to any of you?

[required]

record debt obama wrote:

Where...money coming from...?

I know that you do not understand what you are talking about but I'm not certain you even know what it is you are asking. As for carbon sequestration of coal, Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Shell, believes that there needs to be a price on greenhouse gas emissions that is delivered by cap-and-trade mechanisms.

[required]

Joe wrote:

...the cooling we have had since 1996...

About your "global cooling" theory - a number of opinion pieces have been written on it (the Drudge Report even ran with it once). While it'd be great if global cooling were happening, and carbon emissions instead became unicorns and biodegradable confetti once it hit the atmosphere, the Associated Press did some research. And, well, it's simply not true. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impac...

Now about the supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s - frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds - is a myth. When some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales. http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/10/killing...

[ConJob]

Joe wrote:

I am sure al bore is "skeptical" of anything that he doesn't stand to make billions off of, the man is nothing more than a clown with his hand out to steal billions of dollars without a gun.
There IS NO MANMADE CLIMATE change, NONE, didn't happen, these were the same clowns that were in a panic telling us 30 years ago that we were all going to die from global cooling.
The weather just goes in a cycle, alway's has alway's will, nothing to pee in your pants about, things will be fine, the polar bears will be fine, with the cooling we have had since 1996 they have had a lot more ice to play on, remember the weather goes in cycles, that follow the solar cycles pretty close, most of the smart people have known that for years.

>>>RIGHT ON DUDE<<<< This whole thing is one big con!!

[Rational approach]

required wrote:

<quoted text>
.... some scientists probed two kilometers through a glacier there to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed....
I would totally love for you to elaborate on how exactly you feel back 450,000 to 900,000 years ago (or as other scientist believe 2.4 million years ago) was in any way comparable to our fossil fuel era (the last ~100 years).
I look forward to your response.

Well, I don't know if you'll "totally love" this, but the plain fact is that the time frame we are talking about here is indeed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. I find it so interesting that the "warming" advocates are so eager to take a tiny slice of 30 years or so and proclaim it a devastating trend, while simultaneously deriding those looking at the last 5 years as choosing an irrationally small period of time.

Thank you for at least admitting that, yes, the world used to be warmer, and humans had nothing to do with it.

What actually worries me more is not a true, worldwide, enforceable, "cap and trade", but rather what we are looking at: an unenforceable goal that will be ignored by some nations (notably China and India) and serve only as a tax punishing the US and Europe--somehow assuaging the misplaced "liberal guilt" for historic success that seems to drive all these wacko schemes. In the meantime, the well-connected like Al Bore will get even richer, laughing all the way to the bank.

[Rational approach]

And BTW, "required", you need to get your facts straight. It wasn't Bush that bailed out the automakers, it was Obama and only Obama.

Yes, Bush bailed out (some of) the financial institutions, and Obama has continued that process. In particular, Bush's actions were quarterbacked by the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Among various bailouts, the NY Fed handed billions over to Goldman Sachs, whose former chairman was Chairman of the NY Fed Borad--the body that hires and fires the NY Fed President. In short, this jerk dumped billions to cover his boss's failures at his boss's old firm.

Who was this jerk of a NY Fed President during the Bush administration? Oh--yeah, it was Timmy Geithner--now Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, running the next phase of the bank bailout, and just one more of the many tax cheats in the Obama Cabinet.

Both bailouts, banks and automakers, were wrong--but only a liar tries to hang them both on Bush.

[required]

Rational approach wrote:

It wasn't Bush that bailed out the automakers, it was Obama and only Obama.

I hope you buckled up because you just wrecked: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[required]

Rational approach wrote:

...hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years...take a tiny slice...

You really are letting your irrational idiocy hang out all over the place. You clearly have literally no idea what you are talking about. Scientists have in fact looked via core sampling and have noticed that the fossil fuel era is unlike any time in history.

[required]

^ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Pal...

[Debate]

Global Warming is one of the biggest CON JOBS OF ALL TIME!!!

As soon as the "designated hitter" news media broadcast it to all - the door was quickly closed with THERE IS NO DEBATE - THE DEBATE IS OVER - THEN THE ATTACK DOGS STARTED!!

ONE GIANT CON JOB!! The biggest - the grandest!!

The kool-aid drinkers are convinced - and they are to go forth and convince the "disbelievers" and spread the gospel of global warming.

Remember EST???

Hare Krishna?? And many more of this "genre"?

The Hale-Bopp Comet??

Some of these same minded folks have found another home!

DEBATE - RIGOROUS DEBATE - AND MORE DEBATE IS WHAT WE NEED - WHAT WE MUST HAVE!!

If you are "committed" and feel so RIGHT - then OPEN AND HONEST DEBATE SHOULD BE WELCOMED!!

So far this thing has run the same path as other distorted "belief based causes".

Nasty "punking" of anyone that disagrees with Global Warming - morphed to Climate Change - next morphed to ??

How about some plain old OPEN AND HONEST DEBATE.

LET'S GET IT RIGHT.

This go-go-go emergency mantra for "health care tax" - "global warming" and more emergencies to come b.s.- is contrived - it's manufactured!!

[Rational approach]

I sit corrected on Bush, but remain convinced that both bailouts were seriously wrong. Why blame them all on Bush, when Obama has continued (and expanded) the trend, spent more doing it, and even carried over the tax-cheat quarterback Geithner as chief-giver-away-of-taxpayer-f unds-to-corporations?

[required]

Rational approach wrote:

Why blame them all on Bush, when Obama has...

LOL, to quote Wanda Sykes, "Sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle the uppity Negro."