+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas,Nevada
    Posts
    1,012

    Default Global warming real or imaginary?

    How many have seen Al Gores' An Inconvenient Truth and the (I think) History Channels top ten things that could destroy the Earth and mankind? I am beginning to believe, especially the way the weather patterns have been going, that there is a lot to the global warming problem. The top ten listed global warming even ahead of nuclear war in potential time frame to destroy the Earth. Will the earth regurgitate and cleanse itself like The Day After Tomorrow or just puke all over everybody. Thoughts?

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,017

    Default

    Twenty five years ago it was global cooling and the next ice age.

    Nature is cyclical-warming and cooling periods have occurred for many thousands (millions?) of years.

    Did you see the news stories about Mars also getting warmer? Radiation output from the Sun is the most likely cause, not SUV's.

    Now we have multi-millionaires, celebrities, and washed up politicians flying around the world in their private jets telling us to cut back and drive a smaller cars to save the planet. Give me a break.

    Want to really reduce the use of hydrocarbons for energy? Build more nuclear power plants. Just for the record, I would even support one in my own town if it came to that.
    -------------------
    "The most mediocre man or woman can suddenly seem dynamic, forceful, and decisive if he or she is mean enough." from "Crazy Bosses"
    -----------------------------------------------
    Genius has its limits, but stupidity is boundless.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    gatoremt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tallahassee, Fl. USA
    Posts
    71

    Default

    It is imaginary end of story. Global warming is made up by the left.
    Marshall Griffiss EMT/FF
    Chaires Capitola Fire Rescue
    Tallahassee, Fl.
    www.stitchingbydesign.net
    Washington Lodge #2 F&AM
    Past Master
    Ham Radio: N4DOG General Class
    IACOJ

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    dave29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vestal NY
    Posts
    459

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by gatoremt View Post
    It is imaginary end of story. Global warming is made up by the left.
    AMEN!!!
    Firefighter for Vestal 32-2

    American Red Cross Volunteer

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    RspctFrmCalgary's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Now in Victoria, BC. I'm from beautiful Jasper Alberta in the heart of the Can. Rockies - will always be an Albertan at heart!
    Posts
    6,329

    Default

    I waffle back and forth .... first I'll think that it's all hogwash, how would "they" know all these stats when we've only kept records for such a short period of time and this isn't just a natural progression as opposed to being caused by mankind.

    I watched a program the other night called Thin Ice - Saattuq. It was interesting. No matter what the cause, can't argue with the fact that there have been and continue to be huge changes in the weather, that the ice is definitely melting, the water is freezing later in the year than before and that the seasons are changing in the north.

    canada.com

    Published: Friday, March 16, 2007

    With global warming one of the hottest topics on the planet, the timing couldn’t be better for Thin Ice - Saattuq, a documentary about the impact climate change is having on Canada’s Arctic.

    But the special, which airs Saturday night on Global Television’s Global Currents series, isn’t a rehash of An Inconvenient Truth. Instead, it focuses on how climate change has, and will, alter the way Canada’s northern people live. Thin Ice – Saattuq shows how the Inuit ways of hunting on the ice for food and clothing have been impacted.

    Back to Entertainment
    More on "Thin Ice - Saattuq"

    "This would be an extremely sad situation for the Inuit way of life to be altered to the point where we can no longer hunt and fish as we have for a millennia, and we can no longer be the sentinel, the guard, up here at the top of the world for the rest of the planet,” said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Outgoing Chair, Inuit Circumpolar Conference and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

    “Keep us on the land...because we'll guard it not only for ourselves, but for everybody else."

    The documentary also shows how the thinning of the ice is opening up new areas for resources exploration by countries that may not recognize Canada’s sovereignty. It examines the international dispute over tiny Hans Island in the Nares Straight.

    The director and producer of Thin Ice - Saattuq is award-winning filmmaker George Browne, whose credits include 100 Years of Stanley Park, Tweens – Too Fast Too Soon, and Recruitment for Terror, Know Your Enemy. The founding Executive Producer of Global National with Kevin Newman, Browne is currently working in the new media department at CanWest Interactive (home of canada.com).
    September 11th - Never Forget

    I respect firefighters and emergency workers worldwide. Thank you for what you do.

    Sheri
    IACOJ CRUSTY CONVENTION CHAIR
    Honorary Flatlander

    RAY WAS HERE FIRST

  6. #6
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    It is a naturally occurring phenomenon that we have no control over. If you believe that we can control our climate then you would also believe we can control the weather. The earth has been warming up for over 15,000 years. We experienced a cooling trend when Mt Saint Helens blew and for the last 8 years we have been cooling as well. Matter of fact, the paranoids from the left no longer call it global warming, it is now climate change. If you want t ocool the earth down simply put more stuff in the air to block the sunlight, it's really simple.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Damn! I didn't know we had so many formally educated climatologists on the forums! Why, I'll bet you guys are even Harvard material. Why are you wasting such talent here on some fire service forum, when you all could obviously writing papers that would absolutely stun the world of science and climatology with your vast knowledge and experience. I mean, it would surely be ground shaking news to the overwhelming majority of college educated Phd. types worldwide that think they know everything, right?

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,017

    Default

    Well, my formal education in climatology is the same as Brad Pitt's, Keanu Reeves', Alanis Morrissette's, Leonardo DiCaprio's, Joanne Woodward's, and Al Gore's-none. The only difference is instead of having a private jet, millions of dollars, and a fawning media to latch onto my every word, I get to post my opinions on Firehouse.com.
    Last edited by KenNFD1219; 03-21-2007 at 06:57 AM.
    -------------------
    "The most mediocre man or woman can suddenly seem dynamic, forceful, and decisive if he or she is mean enough." from "Crazy Bosses"
    -----------------------------------------------
    Genius has its limits, but stupidity is boundless.

  9. #9
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Thumbs down Well............

    If it helps, I had a year of Meteorology in school. But the only degree that you really need to see thru this fake hysteria over global warming, is a degree of common sense. Yes, there have been some types of warming, in places, in the last few years. The Earth goes thru cycles, as someone said earlier on this page, and this is a cycle. Last item for today - Did everyone see the news story about the two Women who set out on a hike to the North Pole to draw attention to Global Warming?? They were forced to give up after suffering Frostbite and Hypothermia. YES!! It was that warm.....
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    You would be hard-pressed to say that anthropogenic warming isn't becoming the paradigm. Mean temperature, especially. Such a change could have greater regional effects--especially at the very critical arctic and antarctic regions.

    Given the rapid increase in knowledge (especially in this heavily studied and controversial field) that there has been a great deal of new data.

    And one other issue that should cause us to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. National security. Now that Bush has admitted that oil was/is a reason for the war in Iraq I for one am sick and tired of the thought of spending our treasury and the lives of our young men and women in some god forsaken place to fight and die.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Chiefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    201

    Default PROS and CONS

    PRO....
    • There is little doubt that the planet is warming. Over the last century the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world.

    The spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs 9 days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.

    The 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s, when record-keeping started. The hottest years recorded: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001, and 1997.

    • The multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report recently concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The rise is nearly twice the global average. In Barrow, Alaska (the U.S.'s northernmost city) average temperatures are up over 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius) in 30 years.

    The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that global temperatures will rise an additional 3 to10 degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by century's end.


    CON.....
    The earth’s atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years.

    The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that we must act now if we are to reduce the greenhouse threat.

    Current computer climate models are incapable of coupling the oceans and atmosphere; misrepresent the role of sea ice, snow caps, localized storms, and biological systems; and fail to account accurately for the effects of clouds.

    Temperature records reveal that predictive models are off by a factor of two when applied retroactively in projecting the change in global temperature for this century.

    The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period — 0.37° C —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest buildup of greenhouse gases.

    Accuracy in land-based measurements of global temperatures is frustrated by the dearth of stations, frequent station relocations, and changes in how ocean-going ships make measurements.

    Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years.

    Corrective environmental policies would have a minuscule impact on the climate. According to its own projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own plan would spare the earth only a few hundredths of a degree of warming by middle of the next century.

    YOU DECIDE.................HMMMM

  12. #12
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefy View Post
    PRO....
    • There is little doubt that the planet is warming. Over the last century the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world.

    The spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs 9 days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.

    The 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s, when record-keeping started. The hottest years recorded: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001, and 1997.

    • The multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report recently concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The rise is nearly twice the global average. In Barrow, Alaska (the U.S.'s northernmost city) average temperatures are up over 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius) in 30 years.

    The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that global temperatures will rise an additional 3 to10 degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by century's end.


    CON.....
    The earth’s atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years.

    The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that we must act now if we are to reduce the greenhouse threat.

    Current computer climate models are incapable of coupling the oceans and atmosphere; misrepresent the role of sea ice, snow caps, localized storms, and biological systems; and fail to account accurately for the effects of clouds.

    Temperature records reveal that predictive models are off by a factor of two when applied retroactively in projecting the change in global temperature for this century.

    The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period — 0.37° C —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest buildup of greenhouse gases.

    Accuracy in land-based measurements of global temperatures is frustrated by the dearth of stations, frequent station relocations, and changes in how ocean-going ships make measurements.

    Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years.

    Corrective environmental policies would have a minuscule impact on the climate. According to its own projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own plan would spare the earth only a few hundredths of a degree of warming by middle of the next century.

    YOU DECIDE.................HMMMM
    One more thing, they can't acurately predict the weather 2 days from now, how can they predict years into the future. Matter of fact, they can't even predict where tornaodes will hit.

    Oh yea, one more thing. Al Gore invented the internet, he is not a climatologist

    And hey, didn't a meteor hit the earth a few thousand years ago that sent a huge cloud of dust all over the earth sending it into the ice age? Perhaps all of that dust is finally coming out of the air and the earth is getting back to where it is really supposed to be. Perhaps we have been two cold for all of these years.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Oh yea, one more thing. Al Gore invented the internet, he is not a climatologist
    Have you seen his movie? I bet you haven't. Gore doesn't dispute there are natural trends of cooling and warming. What his data shows is that the amount and rate of warming taking place since the Industrial Revolution is much greater than in years previous.

    If global warming were as insignificant as claimed the oil industry funded American Enterprise Institute wouldn't be offering cash to scientists willing to write articles disputing the premise.

    Secondly. Al Gore did state he "invented the internet." Of course being a conservative sycophant you take the statement out of context and leave off the part where he goes on to explain that he was one of the few in congress to carry the legislation to take the internet into the public domain. Something it's owners (the DoD) were not willing to do. He never makes the claim he was sitting at a terminal writing code.

    Like I said earlier. Turn off the AM radio and start thinking for yourself.
    Last edited by scfire86; 03-21-2007 at 11:09 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Damn! I didn't know we had so many formally educated climatologists on the forums! Why, I'll bet you guys are even Harvard material. Why are you wasting such talent here on some fire service forum, when you all could obviously writing papers that would absolutely stun the world of science and climatology with your vast knowledge and experience. I mean, it would surely be ground shaking news to the overwhelming majority of college educated Phd. types worldwide that think they know everything, right?

    I'll compare my onion paper to yours anytime.
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas,Nevada
    Posts
    1,012

    Default

    The discussion here is really great, even if a little heated among some. I would like to throw out one more thought. Kiwi started a thread showing some real time world stats that got me thinking. Is the world population growing at a rate faster than deaths that will impact not only the environment but the sustainability of human life? I know it seems that we have plenty of land yet unused but much of that was supposed to be set aside for preservation. Keep it going because I feel we need to be prepared. Its' only my opinions so far.

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    And we should listen to the aforementioned politician who tools around in limousines that are left running while he is speechifying so the interior is cool enough for his comfort,and owns a house that uses more electricty than some inner city neighborhoods and coal mines that are under scrutiny because of their pollution output for what reason?
    The man is a hypocrite.Plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Damn! I didn't know we had so many formally educated climatologists on the forums! Why, I'll bet you guys are even Harvard material. Why are you wasting such talent here on some fire service forum, when you all could obviously writing papers that would absolutely stun the world of science and climatology with your vast knowledge and experience. I mean, it would surely be ground shaking news to the overwhelming majority of college educated Phd. types worldwide that think they know everything, right?

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    And we should listen to the aforementioned politician who tools around in limousines that are left running while he is speechifying so the interior is cool enough for his comfort,and owns a house that uses more electricty than some inner city neighborhoods and coal mines that are under scrutiny because of their pollution output for what reason?
    The man is a hypocrite.Plain and simple.
    Once again you only prove you haven't seen his movie. He doesn't make any demands for people to have a lesser lifestyle, only a more energy efficient one.

    Sadly, you're just parroting the usual conservative gasbags.

    I find it odd that not one of the conservatives on this board think that reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is a national security issue. I guess they just just like the idea of sending more people to fight and possibly die half way across the world.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    How does that credit plan work?Does he buy other people's "allowance" to use to make it look like he's not using so much energy while the one selling their to him don't use as much energy because they don't have the credits?Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.
    Nope,haven't seen his movie and don't plan to.It's coming out that not all of the information he presented was confirmed or even accepted by the science community.
    If we went to war in Iraq over oil,why is it that we have $2.339 a gallon across the street from where I sit typing this instead of getting free gasoline allowances?If we wanted the oil badly enough,the sand dunes in Iraq would collapse as we sucked that country dry but we aren't doing that.Don't you think if Halliburton was reallly behind this,they'd want to get as much out as quickly as they could?

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Once again you only prove you haven't seen his movie. He doesn't make any demands for people to have a lesser lifestyle, only a more energy efficient one.

    I find it odd that not one of the conservatives on this board think that reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is a national security issue. I guess they just just like the idea of sending more people to fight and possibly die half way across the world.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    If we went to war in Iraq over oil,why is it that we have $2.339 a gallon across the street from where I sit typing this instead of getting free gasoline allowances?If we wanted the oil badly enough,the sand dunes in Iraq would collapse as we sucked that country dry but we aren't doing that.Don't you think if Halliburton was reallly behind this,they'd want to get as much out as quickly as they could?
    I know that even you aren't stupid enough to believe any of that. I've already posted where Bush has stated that oil is a factor in our involvement in Iraq. Sorry if you don't know how to read.

    And if you believe the oil companies are ever going to give away something they can get you to pay for then I have no doubt your mindset is simian at best.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NEAR THE FALLS
    Posts
    49

    Talking

    I'm no scientist, but this seems pretty convincing to me.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Part of the Global Warming hearing that you wont see or hear from Main stream media.

    University of Alabama Climatologist Roy Spencer's Oral Testimony

    March, 19 2007


    I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to provide my perspective on the subject of political interference in government-funded science.

    I have been performing NASA-sponsored research for the last twenty-two years.
    Prior to my current position as a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and was an employee of NASA from 1987 to 2001.

    During the period of my government employment, NASA had a rule that ANY interaction between its scientists and the press was to be coordinated through NASA management and public affairs. Understandably, NASA managers do not appreciate first learning of their scientists' findings and opinions in the morning newspapers.

    It was no secret within NASA that I was skeptical of the size of the human influence on global climate. My views were diametrically opposed to those of Vice President Gore, and I believe that they were considered to be a possible hindrance to NASA getting full congressional funding for Mission to Planet Earth.

    So, while Dr. Hansen was freely sounding the alarm over what HE believed to be dangerous levels of human influence on the climate, I tried to follow the rules. On many occasions I avoided answering questions from the media on the subject, and instead directed reporters to John Christy, my co-worker and a university employee.

    Through the management chain, I was politely told what I was allowed to say in congressional testimony. In fact, my dodging of committee questions regarding my personal opinions on the subject of global warming was considered to be quite humorous by one committee, an exchange which is now part of the congressional record.

    I want to make it very clear that I am not complaining -- I am only relating these things because I was asked to. I was, and still am, totally supportive of NASA's Earth satellite missions…but I understood that my position as a NASA employee was a privilege, not a right, and that there were rules I was expected to abide by.

    Partly because of those limits on what I could and couldn't say to the press and congress, I voluntarily resigned from NASA in the fall of 2001. Even though my research responsibilities to NASA have NOT changed since resigning, being a university employee gives me much more freedom than government employees have to express opinions.

    So, while you might think that the political influence on our climate research program started with the Bush Administration, that simply isn't true. It has ALWAYS existed. You just never heard about it because NASA's climate science program was aligned with Vice President Gore's desire to get rid of fossil fuels.

    The bias started when the U.S. climate research program was first initiated. The emphasis on studying the PROBLEM of global warming, of course, presumes that a problem exists. As a result, the funding has ALWAYS favored the finding of evidence for climate CATASTROPHE rather than for climate STABILITY.

    This biased approach to the funding of science serves several goals which favor a specific political ideology:

    1) It grows government science, environmental, and policy programs, which depend upon global warming remaining as much a threat as possible.

    2) It favors climate researchers, who quite naturally have vested interests in careers, pet theories, and personal incomes.

    3) And, it provides justification for environmental lobbying groups, whose very existence depends upon sustaining public fears of environmental disaster.


    I'm NOT claiming that a global warming science program isn't needed -- It IS. We DO need to find out how much of our current warmth is human-induced, and how much we might expect in the future. I'm just pointing out that the political interference flows both ways -- but not everyone has felt compelled to complain about it.

    (This concludes my oral testimony).


    Both sides are lining up "experts".

    I think its all a bunch of bunk......
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    How does that credit plan work?Does he buy other people's "allowance" to use to make it look like he's not using so much energy while the one selling their to him don't use as much energy because they don't have the credits?Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.
    I'm just curious: Do you have any idea of what any of the above means, or are you just parroting what you read on some whackjob blog site?

    Generation Investment Management invests on companies which are developing "greener" technologies, either those which are not carbon-based or which are more efficient in their use of fossil fuels. More importantly, the investment view is "long" with GIM planning on backing these companies for years, giving them the capital necessary to achieve their goals. This isn't some stock fund buying and selling on a daily basis, it is a buy-and-hold approach.

    The move to tar Gore with something, anything, gets more palpably desperate by the day. First he is criticized because his home is said to consume 20x the electricity of the "average home", despite the fact that his home has some overhead that average home doesn't have, such as a security detail and all the surveillance hardware which goes with it. And for all the cluck-clucking about the consumption of his house relative to the "average house", no mention was made of the more relevant comparison, how the Gore home matches up to similar-sized homes in his neighborhood.

    Then when it was made public that Gore was now buying the "green" power from Nashville Electric (at the higher cost charged by NES), the retort was "what took so long?"

    And now there is all this cluck-clucking over Gore putting his money where his investors' goes as well. I suppose these same folks would argue the CEO of McDonald's should eat at Burger King, since that CEO's purchases at McD's go straight to improving the value of his stock holdings. Gore and partner David Blood have set up an investment fund which strives to support companies developing the expensive and financially risky developments in energy conservation. This, by itself, is a significant move to help fund the technologies we may all need a decade or two hence, and instead of calling for a nanny government to fund these changes, this is private enterprise taking the lead. There was a time when Republicans thought using the private sector had merit.

    But there is no pleasing some folks, and it is only a matter of time before some hater finds this online and adds it to his blog, oblivious to the joke.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    I'll compare my onion paper to yours anytime.
    And we should listen to the aforementioned politician who tools around in limousines that are left running while he is speechifying so the interior is cool enough for his comfort,and owns a house that uses more electricty than some inner city neighborhoods and coal mines that are under scrutiny because of their pollution output for what reason?
    The man is a hypocrite.Plain and simple.
    I don't think I even once compared the credentials of any of you to actors or Al Gore. Rather, I pretty much challenged you to present your credentials as compared to those of the highly educated scientific community who, as a whole, accepts that our actions are capable of altering global temperatures over time. Nice attempt at a redirect, though. So, I guess each of you rightites are willing to just keep pumping ever-growing amounts of crap into our atmosphere indefinitely, huh?

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    And your statements on Al Gore's home are ridiculous and misleading.

  25. #25
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Thumbs down Huh??..............

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post

    I find it odd that not one of the conservatives on this board think that reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is a national security issue. I guess they just just like the idea of sending more people to fight and possibly die half way across the world.

    No, I don't think it's a National Security issue. What I do think is that the rest of the country needs to get a move started to oust California from the rest of the union. Our Energy problems,AND, most of our economic problems are rooted in the total lack of concern shown for the rest of us by California. There is absolutely NO reason that California should have "Custom Blend" Gasoline, which drives the price up for ALL gas. ADD TO THAT, No new refineries have been built for 30 years, because of "Environmentalist opposition". It's time to show the Environmental Kooks the the Door. Period. Then maybe we can get this Country back on track.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is a "REAL" firefighter
    By AFF_Rescue4 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-17-2001, 10:13 AM
  2. My two cents on "REAL" Firefighters
    By Hoppy851 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-09-2001, 12:01 AM
  3. The "real" firefightes
    By MTFEMSexplorer in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-28-2001, 04:20 PM
  4. Is there a REAL CENTRAL (friendly) DISPATCH out there?
    By IMAFIREFIGHTER4FREE in forum Emergency Services Dispatcher
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2000, 09:57 AM
  5. How real are reality shows?
    By fyrmedik in forum Emergency (& Non) Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-06-1999, 03:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register