An Inconvenient Truth

That was a Tyson-Spinks job.

One haymaker after another.

 

Republicans have gotten very good at taking anything good a Democrat actually DOES and twisting it beyond recognition. We see this time and again. Whether it's the Swift Boat people lying about John Kerry's service record or taking Al Gore's speech about how his work in the Senate helped fund the developement of the Internet and turning it into "Al Gore says he invented the Internet," it's a pretty common theme.

 

s27 -- Good point.
But our brethren in political writing have a BIG responsibility for the effectiveness of that tactic, one they really hate to acknowledge.

 

The conservatives' double-standard is fun to watch.

On one hand, we will start a war with Iraq beause of something we fear they MIGHT do in the future.

But they will pooh-pooh anything to do with global warming because, you know, it hasn't been PROVEN . . . it's only something that MIGHT happen in the future.

But because I'm a nice guy I'll humor the knuckledraggers and say they have a point.

What if global warming really isn't so serious and we spend a great deal of resources on something that really isn't that big of a theat?

Well, we'll still have cleaner air and water.

And we'll still be hard at work on something to replace fossil fuels. Which makes us less dependent on an unstable Middle East.

Is that so terrible?

Even if, against all odds, global warming is much ado about nothing . . . the solutions are STILL great for America in the long run. The ONLY drawback is that it will be expensive in the short run. So damn what. Most things that are good for you in the long run are painful in the short run.

 

There is a bit of a logic shell game that gets played on the topic of global warming. It hasn't taken long for it to be played here.

There may be those who express skepticism about the current warming of the planet. That part seems clear to me, but it's not my field. Yet the essential question which sort of gets fuzzed in the debate is whether manmade factors really play a role.

Those of you who think man's history began with the swearing in of the Clinton administration, say, may fail to realize that warming and cooling are cycles that the globe has undergone for millions of years. There's a big damn pile of real big-boy science about that.

The linkage of manmade factors to the current warming trend is, in fact, very much in dispute.

The notion that those who would remain skeptical about manmade factors as the principal cause of global climate change are somehow in the thrall of the Republicans, say, or big business -- while contending that those on the other side are without sin and pure as the driven snow is nonsense.

Everybody has a an agenda. One side in this argument, if that's what i is, has been pretty honest about theris.

 

Funny - this from the same guy who complains that all the Republicans defend Bush with shouts of "but Bill Clinton did [fill in the blank]". Now you come back with "but Jefferson had slaves?" Amusing.

You brought up the photo ops of Gore in the airports to try and somehow disprove that Gore has his a private jet and is a carbon usage hypocrite. You still going to deny his hypocrisy? Or are you going to just deflect and insult per your usual? Does Gore use a private jet - yes or no?

You say that all the facts are on your side but you cite none. Again typical. Its like Larry David's wife complaining about Michael Crichton's book but then admitting that she never read it.

Can you remind me what Clinton and Gore did about this so-called "world wide emergency" during their time in office? Can you tell me about the nations who signed Kyoto and actually implemented it? The Environmental Protection Agency was brought into being by Richard Nixon - Republican. The National Parks were created by Teddy Roosevelt - Republican. Can you tell me what Democratic Presidents have contributed to the cause of the environment? Jimmy Carter tuning the thermostat down at the White House maybe? Yet Republicans are the "knuckledraggers" on this issue? Your intellectual dishonest knows no bounds.

As far as the movie - I agree with Greg Easterbrook

http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/

Manbearpig lives! Excelsior!

 

Very well put.

 

I'm convinced there's going to be an extreme fossil fuel crisis long before global warming gets us.

We need to get off it to prevent World War, let alone save the environment.

 

I see what you're saying, Henry, and as liberal as I am.... You can ask Buck..... I have my doubts that manmade pollution is the sole cause of global warming. I have written reams on here about the Earth's naturally changing magnetic field.

However! ;D

Picture yourself behind a stinky truck. It's putting out so much foul gunk, ask yourself: Inherently, is that good for the Earth?

Common sense. Gut feelings. That's all I'm asking of conservatives on this issue.

 

The last line isn't well put, it is nearly unintelligible....

The religious right is like Osama Bin Laden when it comes to scientific findings.

 

The agenda of the Republicans is protecting the oil companies and big business.

Clear enough.

But I must have missed what special interest groups Al Gore is trying to protect.

I wouldn't for a minute claim that those who believe in global warming are "without sin and pure as the driven snow."

But please tell me what their agenda is. WHO are they secretly trying to help? We know who it isn't (oil companies). So who is it?

 

If you see the movie, Gore addresses each one of these topics/issues. He tackles the heating/cooling cycles argument pretty well. And the manmade factors argument.

Honestly, I would be surprised if even the skeptics aren't convinced after watching the movie. There's too much evidence not to believe it's happening. And I'm usually a skeptic.

In fact, if someone sees the movie and still doesn't believe it, I would really encourage that person to come on here to talk about it. I'd be really interested in the reasoning (seriously).