![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 47. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jay on April 2, 2007, at 12:36:01
Americans...it's really, really, REAALLY sad Al Gore wasn't given what was his in the first place..the Oval Office.
Jay :-(
Posted by caraher on April 2, 2007, at 12:36:01
In reply to Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.., posted by Jay on April 1, 2007, at 19:38:50
I agree.
Posted by Michael83 on April 2, 2007, at 12:36:01
In reply to Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.., posted by Jay on April 1, 2007, at 19:38:50
Al Gore's movie is junk science. I believe in protecting the environment, but he does not know what he is talking about and stays true to his "green propaganda" like it was a religion.
There is a good movie (albeit long, 75min) on YouTube (that was also shown on TV) that makes his movie look ridiculous.
Posted by Jay on April 2, 2007, at 12:36:01
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » Jay, posted by Michael83 on April 2, 2007, at 4:18:13
> Al Gore's movie is junk science. I believe in protecting the environment, but he does not know what he is talking about and stays true to his "green propaganda" like it was a religion.
>
> There is a good movie (albeit long, 75min) on YouTube (that was also shown on TV) that makes his movie look ridiculous.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pUGore's movie has more 'science' in it then most other movies on this topic, especially including this piece of propaganda from 'youtube' (Couldn't find a decent production house to back the trash?). Gore uses more then 187 different citations from prominent international scientists in his movie. With this, he uses, fact, charts based on fact, and solid data based on the research of the above scientists. Where are the citations, the world scientific leaders in this youtube piece of rubbish? Why is Gore getting an 'Oscar', praise from the scientific community, while this other piece of trash withers away on 'youtube.com'? The right have done this for a long time...they deny science for many reasons. Sometimes it's religious, other's it's to cover their own greed. I dare, implore, you to pull the data from Gore's movie and try to challenge it, using scientific methods. The problem is you can't..you can only come up with rhetoric and say..'no...it's not this way..'..with NIL evidence. Like Reagan and his 'Trees cause pollution' theory...and George Bush and his "There will be more owls and fewer jobs.." comment. Sick. Very, very sick. No care for the world for our children, just to line their greedy little pockets right now.
Jay
Posted by notfred on April 2, 2007, at 12:36:01
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » Jay, posted by Michael83 on April 2, 2007, at 4:18:13
> Al Gore's movie is junk science. I believe in protecting the environment, but he does not know what he is talking about and stays true to his "green propaganda" like it was a religion.
>
>
Many noted scientists support the **facts** presented in this movie.
Posted by saturn on April 2, 2007, at 13:38:34
In reply to Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.., posted by Jay on April 1, 2007, at 19:38:50
I don't know if the global warming theory is correct, but I do think that Al Gore is a hippocrite.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_gWgs4InRE
He also spends a lot of time travelling around via his private gas-guzzling jet.
Posted by Dinah on April 2, 2007, at 13:49:04
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.., posted by saturn on April 2, 2007, at 13:38:34
> Al Gore's movie is junk science. I believe in protecting the environment, but he does not know what he is talking about and stays true to his "green propaganda" like it was a religion.
> Like Reagan and his 'Trees cause pollution' theory...and George Bush and his "There will be more owls and fewer jobs.." comment. Sick. Very, very sick. No care for the world for our children, just to line their greedy little pockets right now.
> I don't know if the global warming theory is correct, but I do think that Al Gore is a hippocrite.
Since the main idea behind this site is support, Dr. Bob asks us to please not post anything that can lead others (such as supporters of Gore, Reagan, or Bush) to feel accused or put down.
It is certainly possible, but also challenging, to have these sorts of discussions while also being sensitive and respectful to the feelings of those who hold different beliefs. You might wish to review the civility FAQ and also the paragraph at the top of this board for ideas on how best to do this. If in doubt, it might be best to run your post by the deputies or Dr. Bob before posting.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Klavot on April 2, 2007, at 13:49:17
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » Jay, posted by Michael83 on April 2, 2007, at 4:18:13
> Al Gore's movie is junk science. I believe in protecting the environment, but he does not know
> what he is talking about and stays true to his "green propaganda" like it was a religion.> There is a good movie (albeit long, 75min) on YouTube (that was also shown on TV) that makes his movie look ridiculous.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
The movie you are referring to is The Great Global Warming Swindle produced by Martin Durkin. Both Durkin and his movie have been badly discredited, see e.g.
http://www.badscience.net/?p=381#more-381
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
Posted by Jay on April 2, 2007, at 15:22:25
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.., posted by saturn on April 2, 2007, at 13:38:34
> I don't know if the global warming theory is correct, but I do think that Al Gore is a hippocrite.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_gWgs4InRE
>
> He also spends a lot of time travelling around via his private gas-guzzling jet.
>
>Yes, so he is supposed to live locked in his basement for the rest of his life? The problem is not individual use, it is oil companies. Bush's former State, Texas, while he was Governor, had the highest number of environmental violations of exceeded-limits of various dangerous pollutants ever issued, yet mostly none, if any where actually given a government warning, and none brought in front of a court. Bush and Cheny still profit from and make money in these business'. Bush fly's around in that nice little environmentally friendly "Air Force One"...so your logic about Al Gore needing a small jet to fly around in is absurd. And Bush continues to spend much of his spare time in Texas, the largest polluting state in the U.S.
Now, about this so-called "report" from snopes.com, and then, READ THE TRUTH below. (And the person who wrote below is NOT even a fan of Al Gore.)
from: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/28/155124/075
-"
The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research," which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It's run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore's electricity use at face value?
Gore's electricity company has no record of being contacted about his bills.
The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore's climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore's usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average. (More here.)
The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.
Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.
Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway.
The larger point, which probably won't work well as a cable-show soundbite but is nonetheless true, is that Gore has done heroic work making global warming a top issue for governments the world over. He has prompted more individual and collective action on this issue than anyone else alive. The changes he has wrought outweigh his personal carbon emissions by many orders of magnitude.from: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/28/155124/075
So there it is, in black and white...the truth. Now, can we go on to solve this important problem, which your children and grandchildren will pay dearly for, called Global Warming?
Jay
Posted by Declan on April 2, 2007, at 15:22:57
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » Michael83, posted by Jay on April 2, 2007, at 11:29:55
Isn't it the case that there is not one *climatologist* (is that what they are called?) who disputes the theory of global warming?
There's that Danish bloke, but he's not a climatologist.It might depend on where you live.
Europe is warmer (as long as the Gulf Stream lasts) and I imagine that applies to North America and is welcome enough.
Though if you come from subsaharan Africa or Australia (1,000 year drought, I heard it described as) or low lying islands (rising seas) there is not nearly so much room to move.
Still, North America must have places where climate change has had a real impact?It's not just global warming alone.
When the world's population stabilises at 12billion, and India and China have industrialised, there will be a significant strain on everything.
Posted by fayeroe on April 2, 2007, at 18:49:27
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » saturn, posted by Jay on April 2, 2007, at 15:22:25
thank you, Jay..........
we have global warming. it is here and our children and grandchildren are going to pay big time for this.........
Posted by saturn on April 2, 2007, at 20:02:39
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » saturn, posted by Jay on April 2, 2007, at 15:22:25
>
>> Yes, so he is supposed to live locked in his basement for the rest of his life?No, just to lead by example. For example, using mass transit/transportation as he espouses, instead of a private jet.
>> Bush fly's around in that nice little environmentally friendly "Air Force One"...so your logic about Al Gore needing a small jet to fly around in is absurd.Bush does not, to my knowledge, maintain that humans cause global warming. So he makes no contradiction between his speech and actions. Therefore my logic is not absurd. I do not suppose VP Gore would support an increase in private jet usage.
>
> Now, about this so-called "report" from snopes.com, and then, READ THE TRUTH below. (And the person who wrote below is NOT even a fan of Al Gore.)
>
>
> from: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/28/155124/075
> -"
> The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research," which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It's run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore's electricity use at face value?Good point. I should have provided a more concrete source. Since the burden is on me to support this assertion, I cannot stand by it.
>>>The changes he has wrought outweigh his personal carbon emissions by many orders of magnitude.
Do as I say, not as I do?
> So there it is, in black and white...the truth.
I respectfully disagree. If you're referring to global warming, and the claim that it is caused by humans, you have not referenced any "black and white" support.
>> Now, can we go on to solve this important problem, which your children and grandchildren will pay dearly for, called Global Warming?
If this is in fact the case, I certainly hope so.
Peace...Saturn.
Posted by fayeroe on April 2, 2007, at 20:06:42
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » Jay, posted by saturn on April 2, 2007, at 20:02:39
saturn, have you "tracked" your carbon footprint to see how much change you can make in your usage of world energy? i'd be curious to see what your score is.......pat
Posted by saturn on April 2, 2007, at 20:15:14
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » saturn, posted by fayeroe on April 2, 2007, at 20:06:42
> saturn, have you "tracked" your carbon footprint to see how much change you can make in your usage of world energy? i'd be curious to see what your score is.......pat
No I haven't. I'm curious why you're curious about what my score would be.
Posted by Declan on April 2, 2007, at 20:18:14
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » saturn, posted by fayeroe on April 2, 2007, at 20:06:42
The truth is we won't solve it.
How could we?
Not just a question of political will, though that's lacking enough.
IMO we are moving into a crunch. And that will involve weird (and understandable) redemptive political movements. Like what you get with mass famine.
If WWI created fascism and communism, what will this create?
Posted by payday on April 2, 2007, at 20:59:07
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » Jay, posted by Michael83 on April 2, 2007, at 4:18:13
-to further expand your insight Michael83 you may wish to read an English novel, "The Fool of Quality" by H. Brooke, in which the protagonist is very much the Al Gore of the 1700's, with a high degree of virtue and generosity.
-the philosopher William Godwin expressed the view that men acted according to reason,
- that it was impossible to be rationally persuaded and not act accordingly,
-that reason taught benevolence and that rational being would live in harmony,-someone please publish the Pop-up book for George jr. to explain the above. Before the cartoon.
Posted by fayeroe on April 2, 2007, at 21:05:26
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » fayeroe, posted by saturn on April 2, 2007, at 20:15:14
you were so down on Gore's lifestyle, i'm curious about yours.
i learned a lot about myself when i took the test. some good and some bad.
Posted by Declan on April 2, 2007, at 21:06:10
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.., posted by payday on April 2, 2007, at 20:59:07
"The Fool of Quality" by H. Brooke.
Posted by Declan on April 2, 2007, at 21:08:19
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » saturn, posted by fayeroe on April 2, 2007, at 21:05:26
Look, I leave the computer on all day and I'm planning a long overseas trip by jet.
We're doomed.
Posted by fayeroe on April 2, 2007, at 21:19:37
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » fayeroe, posted by Declan on April 2, 2007, at 21:08:19
> Look, I leave the computer on all day and I'm planning a long overseas trip by jet.
>
> We're doomed.tsk, tsk, we are at that..........:-) couldn't you go by boat?? i went on a 10 day sailboat trip, in the Caribbean, and by my watch, we actually sailed for 45 minutes in 10 days. go figure that one out! we had an antsy pantsy boat captain..........i'll never forget the smell of the diesel.....instead of the saltwater........
Posted by Declan on April 2, 2007, at 21:24:17
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » Declan, posted by fayeroe on April 2, 2007, at 21:19:37
Maybe a boat trip up one of those South East Asian Rivers while you still can before the Chinese dams stop them running?
The Salween, Mekong or Irrawaddy (then again, should keep away from Burma).
Posted by Declan on April 3, 2007, at 6:41:24
In reply to Re: Saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' today.. » fayeroe, posted by Declan on April 2, 2007, at 21:24:17
Thus far.....
Fuel consumption of American cars
Model T Ford......... 25mpg
Average for 1988.... 22.1mpg
Average for 2006.... 20.8mpg
Posted by fayeroe on April 3, 2007, at 14:34:14
In reply to Technological Solutions, posted by Declan on April 3, 2007, at 6:41:24
> Thus far.....
>
> Fuel consumption of American cars
>
> Model T Ford......... 25mpg
> Average for 1988.... 22.1mpg
> Average for 2006.... 20.8mpg
>interesting that we're going backwards, now isn't it? i drive a 99 Silverado Chevy pickituptruck and i get 21 mph......good maintenance and cruise control....plus the 99 is one of the best that they built. i'm hanging on to it.....i walk to work......walk to the grocery store and library. (dry my clothes on the line, blah, blah, blah :-) )
>
Posted by Declan on April 3, 2007, at 14:35:11
In reply to Technological Solutions, posted by Declan on April 3, 2007, at 6:41:24
In the UK
Airport passengers in 2005.........216M
Airport passengers for 2030........470MAmount to be spent
Widening the M1.........................3.6BPounds
On policies tackling climate change.....500MPounds
Tackling?
Has climate change has become a thing to be tackled?
No one ever talks about tackling terrorism.
The War on Terrorism and the Climate Change Tackle?
Must work like that.
Posted by Declan on April 3, 2007, at 14:52:57
In reply to Re: Technological Solutions » Declan, posted by fayeroe on April 3, 2007, at 14:34:14
From "The Right Man" by David Frumm
"I once made the mistake of suggesting to Bush that he use the phrase 'cheap energy' to describe the name of his energy policy. He gave me a sharp, squinting look, as if trying to decide whether I was the stupidest person he'd heard from all day or only one of the top five. Cheap energy, he answered, was how we got into this mess. Every year, from the early 1970s to the mid 1990s, American cars had burned less and less oil per mile travelled. Then in about 1995 that progress had stopped. Why? He answered his own question: because of the gas-guzzling SUV. And what had made the SUV possible? This time I answered 'Um, cheap energy?'. He nodded at me. Dismissed."
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.