# CO2 and Global Warming ... theory



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I have heard several times lately that the rise in CO2 is the symptom of global warming NOT the cause of "Global Warming."

Point being that it happens during every warming cycle over earths history.

Anyone with any additional information on that thinking?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This guy has the solution

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/od ... MSj4YDW7oF

got to love those Canadians :lol:


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

No I am keeping quiet!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Here is a pretty interesting perspective on what it is really all about.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Obviously I'm no scientist ... but it seems to me that if it's true that CO2 in the air elevates as moisture in the air increases ... What are the effects of more moisture in the air ... (I can tell you for certain that warm air holds more moisture than cold air) does the climate become warmer and moister?? Do things over time become more "Tropical" in nature ... does that mean more vegitation?? If it does CO2 is one of the food sources of Vegetation.

I don't know much, but I know simple common sense leads me to wonder about what some scientists say.

Example ... Friends of ours went to the Doctor ... Doctor determined the Wife's Cancer had retrurned (two masses visible) ... after several hours of images and tests our friend (the husband) says ... those things are located awfly "symetrical" there. The doctors go into another room ... come back out ... and casually note that the two "masses" were her ovaries and there was nothing wrong at all.

But ... our friends had spent about 36 hours believing SHE was pretty much going to die based on something a Doctor said. And it took my friend (no doctor by any means) to straighten them out.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Global Warming/Climate change whatever liberal buzz word you want to use for it, CAN NOT be fixed by humans. No matter how much money we throw at it, just like the Ice age and humans weren't even here yet, come on people think.... don't let the liberals pull the spotted owl routine on us again! 
:eyeroll:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Oh, really!! You have me convinced. Global warming is a manifest of liberal America. You poor soul, you have my deepest sympathy. I think we should call you "bubble boy" because you are certainly in your own little world.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

DJ, where does Al Gore stand on global warming and would you say he is a liberal? It seems there may be a correlation there.
Did any of you read the article I posted on the Hot Topics forum on Global Warming? It was by William Rusher. Is Mr. Rusher a liberal or a conservative?
I thought about posting that article in this forum, but didn't think it was related to politics, but I may have been wrong?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Mob, only liberals believe in global warming? This is probably the dumbest logic that I have read in the political forum and I have read some really dumb things in this forum. And you actually want to debate the assumption that only liberals believe in global warming? There is no science to your logic but only your ignorance. Now, is there such a thing as global warming? It has absolutely nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative and if you think it does well why don't you crawl into the "bubble" with "bubble boy."


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Thanks for the good laugh - I hope bubble boy and I don't have bad gas or we could have a case of bubble warming or god forbid a bubble meltdown. 
I guess it could be a total coincidence that it's mostly the liberals that are the extreme environmentalists and are pushing the global warming theory.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

No, it's not mostly extreme liberals who are "pushing" global warming, It is your political bias that wants you to believe that it is extreme liberals that are pushing global warming because you see Al Gore as one who believes that it is not a natural cycle. It is totally absurb that anyone would believe that global warming is something that we can do nothing about and is just an illusion of liberals. I noticed on the Hot Topics you mentioned the acid rain problem and the ozone depletion problem and you seem to think that they were also illusions and that nothing that man has done has helped to contribute nor to reduce their effect on our planet. Well, if that is what you believe then this is America and I guess you have every right to believe but...


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I believe BBC will be airing a special on Global Warming and science proving that it is not man made. More scientists are starting to believe this also, as more research is published. I wish I could remember the airing time, but don't off hand.

The little bit of time that these models are created from are so small I don't see them as valid. Also if they are to be so accurate why is it that we can't even predict tomorrows weather accurately? There are many things that happen that we still have no clue about. This has become more of a big business and political clout issue than real science in my opinion.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

As usual all talk and no substance. If you really don't think the far left has a agenda in pushing this babble about man being the cause of global warming then you still have your head where the sun don't shine. Remember the Kyoto Protocol that was such a hot button issue pushed by the Clinton group. well..................... other than shutting down probable half our industry the results would have been as stated below.

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

If you really believe the acid rain problem and the ozone depletion problem were both corrected and brought under control by man then I would be very interested in reading any documented proof or just a site that supports that belief............. that is if you can come up with one. BTW, as soon as we correct that 0.28 % greenhouse gas contribution that us humans are blowing into the atmosphere I'm sure we will all be so much better off and happy.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Well said Gohon!
:beer:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I'm flying by the seat of my pants here a little ... but memory tells me CO2 is something in the 300 (plus) PPM range ... BTW, CO2 is considered a polutant by "Some Human Beings" ...

Plants however like CO2 closer to 1000 PPM.

Could it be that higher Temps ... higher Moisture Levels ... higher CO2 Content ... simply make earth more "Plant Friendly" over the duration of this climate cycle??

And just when them damn plants become so plentiful and greedy that think they can take over the world ...

They will starve thier own resources creating too much oxegen and face "Global Cooling" ...

And with it a slow agonizing DEATH??

Just a thought form where I sit. :roll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

DJRooster said:


> Oh, really!! You have me convinced. Global warming is a manifest of liberal America. You poor soul, you have my deepest sympathy. I think we should call you "bubble boy" because you are certainly in your own little world.


I'm sure it would take the word of the Clinton's to convince you of anything or Al gore or Teddy K or maybe Kerry :lol: 
So just for the sake of hearing your view; how much money and how many jobs will get lost to fix our spotted owl....whoops I mean climate change problem? And I want to know if we do everything short of going back to horse and buggy will this fix it? YES or NO? If you can't answer that you should Zip it, because your not being honest with us or yourself.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

To compare the spotted owl with the global warming issue just shows how much you trivialize global warming. Yup, just roll the dice with global warming because sh-t happens and there ain't anything we can do about. Hummmm.. that is good logic. You have me convinced.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

BINGO, I rest my case, but don't worry you can't answer the question because the liberals don't know either, but thanks for playing. That's what they do, give problems with no solutions and blaim everyone because *they* didn't fix the problem.
If your not part of the solution your part of the problem! :beer:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

You do care!!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

If your gas mask is removing the CO2 from your breath and is connected to your backside to remove the methane I appreciate your efforts to reduce Greenhouse Emissions! Although, it is really kind of hard to tell if that is you behind that mask or Al Gore!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

That's about what I expected from the *LEFT* for a solution or an answer uke:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

ABBK ... Liberals would never be able to exist in my operations ...

I live by the motto of ... "Don't bring me problems, Bring me solutions."

Liberals MUST have problems in order to justify their existence and importance ...

If they were to start actually solving any problems ...

Well ...

Ummm ...

It would become "Self Defeating" ...

And there ain't no future in that $hit.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

DJRooster, it too bad you can't come up with some real data. It seems that with more and more research we are finding that the Global Warming group's data was flawed. How can we base all this data on such a small timeframe and still think it's accurate?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I DEFINATELY get the impression that more and more and more folks in the Science Business are coming out to tell anyone who will listen that this "Man Made" Global Warming is unfounded hyperbole.

We have so little information about the Earth and How It Operates in terms of (as one for instance) moisture/rainfall/snowfall to make any "model" of what's going to happen to earth in the future &#8230; complete folly.

Especially when you realize CO2 is a result of a warming climate not a cause of it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Millions of dollars are currently being spent to understand global warming. There are scientists that agree with Al Gore, and there are scientists that disagree. Al Gore has done a great disservice by politicizing the issue. Once something like this is politicized the trust goes out the window. 
Global warming began as a scientific issue, but the liberals have turned it into a political issue and I am afraid that will be the kiss of death for funding. There is very little that a liberal politician can tell me that I will believe. I have witnessed them lie all to often. 
I remember well the issue about the Alaska pipeline. The environmentalists said it would destroy the Porcupine caribou herd by interrupting their migration route. As a young Wildlife Biologist I had complete trust in what I perceived as fellow environmentalists. The herd population increased and I feel like I was lied to. None of what they told me has come to pass. Now we hear how drilling in the Anwar National Wildlife Refuge will destroy it, and I don't know what to think. It sounds like the same old rhetoric all over again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. 
I'm lucky enough to know scientists working in the field, and still I have to know the scientist before I will believe what they say. There are those above reproach, and I am sorry, but there are some that let political beliefs influence what they say. Even knowing these scientists I can not sort out the truth.
Personally I believe it is real, but that humans are a small portion of the influencing mechanism. There may or may not be much we can do, but my preference would to be error on the safe side, and there is a way to do this that will have benefits that justify the funding. Wetlands store tons of carbon per acre, per year. Wetland restoration as a mitigation would provide waterfowl habitat and agriculture income, while holding down electrical costs for all of us. These savings in electrical costs for individuals, the reduced grain support prices and other costs to taxpayers would largely offset the funding to implement such a program.

Much of it is blown out of proportion for political gain. In other instances if is blown out of proportion for scientific research funding. I say fund research so we know where we are, and implement frugal programs that provide valuable secondary benefits. This will defuse the political bomb while unveiling the truth. This is one of those issues where only fools, the naïve, and the political motivated have all the answers. Science needs publications more readily available to the public, and politicians need to ------ well that's a dream.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

After searching for several days to see what all the data is out there on Global warming I have found one alarming truth. Almost every single graph, which is easy to interpret, for global warming lists only about the last 300 years, most of which list only the last 100-150 years which in geologic terms is about a millisecond, but if you look at the ice core data graphs, which cover thousands of years and geologic data over millions of years, you can lay almost every one, in repeatable periods, on top of one another, which seems to show the trends we are in as being exactly what the earth has done for thousands of years, in no more of a severe trend than ever.

35 years ago, we were going into an ice age, global cooling was the term of the day, then global warming came to be, which in turn has changed to global climate change.

I guess my thought is to trust what the geologist, whose study is over millions of years, and ice core data which is thousands of years of data, than just take a minor blip of time and sound the alarm. Even the UN has stated, that agreeing to the Kyoto accord, which not one country whom has signed it has, would cause enough change to affect the global temperature by 0.1 degrees, and would cost the USA almost 400 billion dollars.

We can't even predict what's going to happen with the weather in two days for one city, let alone predict what is going to happen to the world over any period of time.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN!!! 
Whatever happen to those poor spotted olws??
I didn't see any treehuggers helping the poor owls when the forest fires were out of control, they should have been out there with their garden hoses. But then again nobody makes any money when millions of acres of lumber burned so thats ok. *As long as no jobs were created and none of those BIG business guys made a dime then all is good in liberal land.*

This is the SAME old story from the LEFT on Gobal Warming.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

New RECORD low temp at JFK Airport for yesterday ... 13 degrees, blew the old record of 20 degrees complete off the page.

Also wasn't there a Global Warming Summit of some sort postponed last week in Minniapolis (??) because of a BLIZZARD?

Here in Vegas about a month ago we had a sweep of the coldest five days on record ... into the low 20s every night.

Nary a word from Al Gore about any of this though.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I guess it is just a coincidence that as the consumption of fossil fuels has increased and the amount of "slash and burn" of the tropical rain forests has increased the amount of CO2 has also increased along with the average world temperature and it has happended in a very short period of time from a climatology standpoint. Here I thought there was a correlation between these events but according to these rocket scientists in the political forum the only correlation was with liberal hyperbole. Plainsman, I have been waiting for your input and I am very proud of you in that you could put all this political bullsh-t aside and step up to the plate and speak some sense. The rest of you can just keep reading the internet and search for the your truth because remember, "the holocaust did not occur because it says so on the internet."


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

DJRooster

You completely side-step my point which isn't Political at all ... Infact I have not used the term "Global Warming" in conjunction with Politics in this intire thread.

I have been talking about what I am seeing and hearing regarding the science of the issue.

Please scroll up and re-read my initial post ... it's not too difficult to understand.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

He side steps every question so far and wants other people to tell him the solutions, and oh by the way it doesn't take a *ROCKET SCIENTIST * to figure this is a political issue for a reason, $$$, the sky is falling but little peter cried WOLF too many times.
If the liberals spent half as much of their energy supporting the war on terrorist as they did on this POPPYCOCK our troops would be safer and our country stronger then ever, instead these MORONS allways look toward selfdefeat!

An immediate threat on this Country's servival is not nearly as important then something possablly 1000's year off :eyeroll: .

Let's make it passed the next 10 years, if we servive, then worry about other crap that won't even matter if we're all dead in 10 years.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

ABBK ... One could easily liken this to the proverbial:

"Blind Man in a Dark Room Looking for a Black Cat that Isn't There."

With Al Gore and Daryl Hannah barking out clues to him from the rafters.

Just a wierd visual from where I sit.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I got ya..........I see it now :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Keep this in mind guys. There is enough substance to global change to give it credibility. We can deny it, but then the liberals will beat us into the dirt with the controversy. Denying it plays into liberal politicians hands. Some scientists don't think it is important, but most do. The media will make us conservatives look uneducated, backwards, and blow us out of the water in 2008 if we don't get with the program.

We do contribute to global change, that is undeniable. How much we contribute no one knows, and I mean no one. There is no doubt we can not stop it, but we may slow it slightly. What we need to do is promote fiscally responsible programs that reduces carbons, but has secondary fringe benefits. Benefits that within themselves are worth the expenditure. That makes the debate a worthless club to the liberals, it gives environmental credibility to conservatives, and if you're a hunter expanded habitat isn't a bad thing is it?

I think Al Gore is a sub intelligent person. However he has latched onto a controversy that he and other liberals will beat us into the dirt with. The reality is there is credibility to the global change warnings, and we may or may not be able to do anything about it. Does that mean just role over and toast? Not me. I also refuse to be beaten by people (liberal politicians and media) who will hold me up to the public and declare me a backwards conservative, who thinks the earth is flat. I know you conservatives on here, and no one is less intelligent, or less environmentally concerned, it's just that experience has taught us (myself included) to mistrust liberals. This is one of those times we have to forget who is saying it and look at the scientific evidence. Liberals know we don't trust them, and they are counting on us to deny and fight any programs they bring forward to slow global change. We need to duck that bullet and propose better more fiscally responsible programs. I know Al Gore has no credibility with conservatives, and we find it hard to believe any liberal, but I hope I have some credibility with you.

We are being baited fellows, are you going to bite? Us denying global change is much like the liberals denying that our firearms are threatened by liberal politicians.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Plainsman

If you are assuming that I deny the notion that the climate of the Earth changes over time ... you are mistaken about my thinking.

I buy into that 100% ... However ... I'm not convinced that we Humans have the ability to do what Al Gore seems to think is happening.

Can someone tell me what happens here on Earth as the Earth warms??

Is there some reason to believe my "I'm flying by the seat of my pants here a little" post to this thread is complete nonsense?

What is it ... we believe is going to happen?

Maybe Al Gores movie would have told me if I watched it?

I am convinced that the idea that "We can't change it" has a lot of credibility ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No decoydummy I don't think your not accepting anything. I also agree, that we may not be able to influence the direction or affect natural cycles, but we may slow them down. Further, there are inexpensive things we can propose that will take the political club from liberal hands. I guarantee you this debate will kill us if we continue to deny reality. I am as ready as anyone to debate liberal values, but debating global change is asking for a black eye. As they say even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn, and the inventor of the internet has found one.

We all know the Washington liberals want our firearms. Local liberals refuse to believe it, but we know it's true and it is a point we can pound them with. Lets not let them pound us into the dirt with global warming.

Lets not automatically appose things, let us look at the facts and make independent decisions. I oppose many liberal values, but I'm not going to oppose a single issue simply because a liberal is tooting the horn. Conservatives nor liberals are right or wrong all the time. It's just that we are so accustomed to liberals being wrong most of the time.

By the way, I wouldn't spend $.02 to see Al Gore's movie. A little fact, with a lot of hype. He is concerned about promoting his political career, destroying conservative careers, and I don't think he really gives a rats behind about the environment. I don't respect many politicians as true environmentalists. Hunters are the original environmentalists, and that bond holds the people on this site together more than politics can divide us. Lets ignore the politics of this issue and look at it through the eyes of hunters, not democrats or republican. Let's look at this as an opportunity for habitat improvement, not a political scheme. It is only a political scheme if we let it become one.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I agree, that we may not be able to influence the direction or affect natural cycles, but we may slow them down.


Right there would be our difference ...

Based on the science I see and my realization of the profound (scare potential) political impact of this issue ... I don't buy into the notion that a "Man Made Problem" exists. If it's a Natural Cycle ... Is it a problem???

It's right back to the "blind man in the dark room" thing. What's the point of trying to (or thinking we possibly could) "slow something down" that is a natural cycle?

As I understand it "Mother Nature" is a Big A$$ Woman and maybe we ought not be thinking we can fool her.

I don't advocate stupidity regarding our stewardship here on earth, but on the other hand I drive Classic Muscle Cars that I build myself, so I'm 100% responsible for their perpetuation ... and I don't feel guilty about them.

I'd still like just one person to tell me what happens to the Earth as it warms??

Mercifully ... the Ice Age ended ... and I figure it to return.

Standing Question There ... not necessarily for you but for anyone.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'd still like just one person to tell me what happens to the Earth as it warms??


There are many opinions, but they are just that opinions. We have no recorded history that can be used as data to form a real good model. We can look back into prehistoric ice for data, we can look at anions in the soil for data, we can use geomorphic evidence, and that will give us some ideas. However, there are conflicting views and someone has to be wrong. 
More recently many scientists are referring to the subject at hand as global change and using the term global warming less often. I think the change in terminology came about because as the planet temperature changes ever so slightly the interaction of the driving forces causes heat in some areas, cooling in others, and a rise in violent weather where these temperature changes meet. 
I think the ice caps melting, and much of the earth becoming desert is an exaggeration, but I think we will see more violent weather, and greater fluctuation in moisture. I would guess cities like Phoenix, Arizona which sits in a desert and has high water use will be in trouble. I don't think California will sink into the sea. 
Do all these doom and gloom prophecies have to come about to make global change disastrous? No, ten years of drought in the agriculture states could reek havoc with our economy. Ten years of drought in Russia or China may make them think about over running a food producing nation. There are more things to worry about than melting ice caps. 
Things happen slowly, and I don't think we or our children will see any great problems. However, I think ten generations from now the human race will face some real problems. For example, I know a lady that through soil (can't remember, but I think she was looking at ions) can track weather patterns back for 250,000 years. She says we are in the middle of a 400 year drought. You think Fargo and Grand Forks seen flooding in the past ten years. A couple hundred years from now they will be flushed to Hudson Bay.

Liberals feel guilty for just being alive so jump on these gloom and doom ideas being our fault readily. I think this is a natural cycle and that we as an advanced species contribute to it in greater magnitude than other species. That said we perhaps still have only a small part of the overall cycle influence.

With all that said there are things we can do without it becoming a financial problem. There in lies one of my pet peeves. Liberals want us to take the lead, but let other countries off the hook entirely. Why is it always Americas fault in liberal minds?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

If the Israeli's start droping NUKES on the islamic terrorist groups because we don't get the job done.........then you'll have some serious CLIMATE CHANGE / GLOBAL WARMING :lost:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Rooster, the earth is warming, and has been warming for a number of century's with cycles of cooling occurring during those times the most recent started in the late 30's and lasted about 40 years.

But I have to ask, what is a 40 year cycle or a 20 year cycle in comparison to the life of the earth. Man has such a high opinion of ourselves that we cannot seem to step outside of the box and think in terms beyond our own life expectancy. When in relationship to the life cycle of our planet it amounts to adding or subtracting a single dollar bill to a pile that contains a million dollars. Nobody would know it is there or missing unless they counted it.

So we sample ice cores, and study soil deposits and attempt to fit our finding into terms that fit our life cycle. Hence the human flaw that surrounds the issue of GW and or GC[global cooling]!

Where I grew up in ND, the land we farmed has been covered by sea water and also by ice. I do believe that in the future it will once again be covered by sea water and by glaciers. Neither of which man if we are still around will be able to stop either from happening.

Only man in egoistical enough to think we will stop glaciers or sea water from returning to places they once where. Dinosaurs once walked this earth. So did many species of man like beings. We as a animal that inhabits earth will someday go the way of T-Rex. The history of our planet tells us this will take place. Someday also the earth with no long exist as well.

But if you want to follow the lead of Al Gore. Then sell all your hunting gear, fishing gear. Stop taking your truck out hunting. Find housing close enough to where you work and walk. Stop eating meat, using any products that produce CO2 gases in their manufacture or participating in any activity that releases CO2!

If you think what I am saying is outlandish, I suggest you find the early Jan issue of Time magazine and read about Kyoto Japan. They have done many things to lower their greenhouse gases and just from the simple expansion of population levels are looking at no AC a couple days a week. No vehicle use, making it illegal to have only one person living in an apartment. Restricting such items as flat screen TV's computers, MP3 players and the list goes on and on simply to get down to a level that would still be 15-20% above the goals that they think are needed to simply slow the rate of GW!

So I ask are you ready to go to such drastic measures ? That is why this issue needs to be debated and the real information gotten out to the public.

Gore is promoting "Green Credits" which would allow one to pollute as long as you could afford the credits. To put it in plain English, that means to go chase roosters around ND you would have to buy credits to offset your CO2 expulsion for that trip.

Your parents end up in the hospital in Rochester, more green credits would be needed to go visit them. Heck we may even reach a point that when old people no longer can provide any meaningful contributions they would be put to death! Think of all the energy that goes into health care and housing for elderly or those who due to an accident become dependent upon others for food shelter etc....

That is the only way to slow CO2 output simply by reducing those who consume goods the produce it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Global warming is caused by the sun?????????? WOW!

Yup...that's the latest conclusion of those who dare to speak out against the Global Warming jihad. And there's new information that can't be making Al Gore happy. According to National Geographic News and a scientist...global warming is caused by.....the sun.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

Imagine that! :roll:

Uh-oh....what now? Will Al Gore ever admit that he might have been wrong?

Of course not...because the global warming movement has nothing to do with the environment...and everything to do with politics.

*According to the report, simultaneous warming of the Earth and Mars by the sun suggest that recent climate change may not be caused by man.

As proof, the report cites a NASA report that says the polar ice caps are also melting on Mars. *

Uh-oh...time to pass a climate treaty for Mars. Those Martians obviously need to cut back on their driving and install solar panels. But remember .. only advanced industrial nations on Mars will be affected. Developing nations will be exempt.

And there's more...scientists at the Danish National Space Center think global warming is caused by cosmic rays from exploded stars, not man.

Are they right? Who knows.

But the point is that there are reasonable people who disagree about global warming.

*This is something the media hides from the public. Anybody who dares to speak out against the global warming movement is derided as a Holocaust denier and a member of the Flat Earth Society. *

But back to that Mars thing....perhaps Al Gore could move there and run up the light bill.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob, I'll bet that darn Marvin the Martian drives an SUV.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

This thread is a joke! :eyeroll:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Us denying global change


Plainsman you've said the above several times now. Who is denying that global warming and the climate change does not exist? Sure it exists and everything I've read and everyone I've talked to freely admits so. What the Al Gores and Roosters keep babbling is, it is all caused by man. We certainly contribute some but man is not the cause and to that I do deny.

Here is a question I'd like to find a answer to. If plants have a desired level of 1000 ppm CO2 then just how did they evolve to the point to thrive on that level? Were CO2 levels once that high on this planet? Not having a scientific mind that puzzles me.

BTW Rooster, the only joke in this thread is your refusal or most likely inability to provide any data to support yourself......... not that you really have any.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks for the reminder Gohon, I knew that at one point, but evidently it slipped my mind.

I think we (conservatives) all agree there is global change.
I also think we know we are a part of it.
I think we also agree that we don't know how much we contribute.
I think we also agree that we can't stop it.

We may or may not agree that we can slow it slightly.
We may or may not agree to do something about it.

This is the way I look at it.
It is happening, most of it is natural cycle, part of it is our influence. We should do something to mitigate for our portion of the C02. However, we should do it in a way that does not punish America, or the American taxpayer. Fund scientists to find out what is really happening.

I look at this problem from a biological, climatologically standpoint, and a political tactical standpoint.
There are different ways of looking at this. Wetlands store tons of energy per acre. Therefore look at it as a habitat improvement opportunity. A government program for wetlands restoration would be beneficial to many wildlife species and waterfowl hunters at very little cost. Wetlands restored do not produce grain that requires support prices so the cost is not a consideration. No expenditure, habitat improvement, and C02 mitigation all in one shot. Then let the private sector like power plants buy carbon credits from farmers. Farm income results while holding down the price of electricity for you and I.

If liberals are serious about this go back to the 1957 aerial photos of the United States and compare those photos to those of today. Since wetlands store carbon and a plow releases those carbons just like a shaken bottle of Coke being opened stop all subsidies on farms that the photos show wetlands drained. A couple billion in savings there. Then those farmers who restore wetlands will make an income off carbon credits and a program that could be comparable to CRP.

What advantages does this have. It will reduce carbons and take a huge club from the hands of the liberals like Al Gore. Old Al isn't interested in the environment, he is interested in his political career. However, he is lucky enough to have found something to pound on us with. We have the second amendment rights to pound on liberals with, lets not let them have global warming to pound on us.

Global warming and the second amendment are two important debates that will influence the next election. Teachers are teaching our children about global warming and how it is our fault. This has resulted in a majority of Americans agreeing with Lerch (Al Gore). The next election I fear will be pivotal in the direction America takes. We need to play this game smart, or we will loose. Where our opportunity lies is in offering alternatives to mitigation that are less painful to the American people. Liberals think they have a golden club, but we can put the monkey on their back. Do you think Americans want to cut back travel by 50% or restore a few wetlands at little to no cost?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Gohon, provide data to support global warming? Wake up! It has been at the forefront of every media source for the last X number of years. I have not seen the garbage logic that some of you have printed in this thread in any credible newspaper or any other credible media source. Oh thats right the media is just a outlet for liberal propaganda. I can cut and paste a zillion pages that will document support for man's contribution to globabl warming but what for? It would be a waste of my time trying to convince the non-believers who call it another liberal fabrication. Let's just stick our head in the sand when it comes to environmental issues because it is all liberal bs. It's just a natural cycle. Like I said this thread is a joke!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

> Teachers are teaching our children about global warming and how it is our fault. This has resulted in a majority of Americans agreeing with Lerch (Al Gore).


 uke:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

DJRooster

What happens to the Earth as it warms??

What will be the chemical changes that occur because of the activities on Earth as it warms?

You simply can't contribute to the thread as I intended it.

I have put up several plausible thoughts along the way ...

It is 100% true that no one on Earth can measure the amount of moisture (rain and snow) fall and that is a very Key Factor to what happens on Earth as it warms, especially if we accept that more violent weather patterns will exist.

I simply don't accept the fact that Al Gore has decided the Earth is warming *and it's something he/we should scare the hell out of each other about.*

So, on your Zillions of resources on the subject ...

What happens as the Earth warms?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> > Teachers are teaching our children about global warming and how it is our fault. This has resulted in a majority of Americans agreeing with Lerch (Al Gore).
> 
> 
> uke:


You don't think so????? I know teachers who teach global warming as fact and that doesn't bother me so much as they teach it as all our fault. I also know that elementary teachers were ticked when a friend of mine who teaches wanted to tell the other side about animal rights issues. The women teachers wanted to all but hang him. For my work I often went to high school career days. Do you see animal rights propaganda there? Do you see any organization given a chance to pass out alternative literature -----no. Our kids are getting heads full of junk that the school has no business teaching. Stick to education, not emotional propaganda like animal rights. Teach global warming issues, but keep it real, it's not all our fault. 
It's not science your teaching when you include political bias.

So Rooster, what do you think of cutting support prices, wetland restoration and agriculture support for it? Since we had our farm in the old soil bank program I have always been more willing to pay for conservation than support price for grain anyway. Dumping corn ethanol would be a good first step to slowing global warming.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

> It's not science your teaching when you include political bias.


It is not political bias unless you are a man posessed by politics and your own paranoia and want to make everything into left vs right. For you it may be political but for most it is just a matter of opinion and has absolutley nothing to do with politics.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I just happen to catch a little of Rush Limbaugh's radio and guess what he was saying, you guys all sound like clone's of Rush! He said.........and it's all a bunch of liberal scare tactics! Now that is what I call scary! Rush Limbaugh the keeper of the environment! He only thinks with politics leading his agenda and to me those people are the most dangerous people of all!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> > It's not science your teaching when you include political bias.
> 
> 
> It is not political bias unless you are a man posessed by politics and your own paranoia and want to make everything into left vs right. For you it may be political but for most it is just a matter of opinion and has absolutley nothing to do with politics.


For scientists it is science, but for most politicians it is politics. I see both sides of this issue. Unfortunately once the politicians get involved trust is gone and science suffers. I'm not debating the existence of global warming Rooster, at this time I am more interested in what you think of my ideas for mitigation of the human portion of C02 problem. 
I don't expect just America to bite the bullet here. If we cut back on emissions everyone should. Do you think the guy burning wood in his hut in some third world country produces any less emissions than you or I. I don't know, I'm asking the question. Also, reducing emissions is ok, but mitigating is also valuable. Until the technology is realistically affordable I propose we do something cheaper. After all none of us want to put the economy in the dumper.

Do you agree that those who spout corn ethanol out of one side of their mouth and save the environment out of the other are hypocrites?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

As with all major problems there is no singular solution. If in fact we do have a global warming problem there is no quick fix and it will be a lot of little solutions coupled with some major solutions that will have an impact on finding a resolution to these issues. So to answer your question, yes it will help but the biggest sponge of C02 other than the ocean being the tropical rainforests and with "slash and burn" that is not a pretty scenario. Another of the biggest problems are a billion Chinese and a billion Indians trying to act like a bunch of Americans and if and when they start to put demands on world energy resources trying to act like Americans, C02 levels will only go one way and that is up. What affect will this have on world climate, well it depends on who you talk too! Oh and your political bias!


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

DJRooster said:


> If in fact we do have a global warming problem


Is that an inkling of "Progress" I am detecting there :lol:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I see ethanol as an alternative to oil, no more, no less. I don't think it is everything that some people would have us believe. It may be good for North Dakota and North Dakota farmers in the short term because we can produce the corn and we have a relatively cheap energy source with lignite and we have water resources necessary for the industry. In the long run only time will tell if it is good for North Dakota. From an environmental standpoint again it is not what some would like you to believe.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster

Through satellite atmosphere testing a large carbon sink has been identified in the Northern Hemisphere. In North America to be exact. No it isn't CRP, it isn't native prairie, it is wetlands. In total the rain forest may contain more C02, but wood grows slowly and on an annual basis wetlands store more carbon than the rain forest.
I agree with you it is a shame that politics has tainted science. Both sides are guilty of latching on to fragmental facts and trying to build clubs to beat the other party with. Some clubs are more factual than others like the idiot lady currently trying to expand the "assault weapon" ban to include what you and I would consider sporting arms.

Your also right about the Chinese and other developing countries. They need to be as accountable as we are for there is nothing we can do alone. The Kyoto Protocol punishes only the United States. This alone spawns much distrust among the American people, especially conservatives who remember how often the U. N. has mistreated us.

I wish scientific reports were more available to the public, but then no one wants to read that boring stuff anyway, they would rather go to the computer. Literature, if it is not critically reviewed by other scientists for scientific methods, statistics, etc, is just opinion. Unfortunately nearly everything the public reads is simply opinion. Terminology is a good indicator of what is happening in the scientific world. I have noticed as of late that often they speak of global change in preference to global warming.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The earth is warming and has been for over 800 years this is not disputed by either side of the debate on who or what is the cause. I asked you Rooster just what you are willing to do that will slow your CO2 output since you have bought into the theory that man made CO2 is the cause.

You are once again avoiding a direct question.

Back in the 70's man was causing so many airborne particles that they where reflecting back the rays from the sun that warm the earth. I think it was Time or Newsweek had a picture graph of the anticipated glacier line that extended down into northern NB and this was to be in place within a 100 years

So now many of those same people are claiming man has caused the release of so much CO2 that it is trapping in the heat causing the glaciers to recede and New York,Boston and other cities along the coasts will be covered in sea water as the glaciers melt.

Now tell me Rooster, is there any wonder why so many of us who have been around long enough to hear the BS being spun from research professionals that we are skeptical of what they say.

The issue is money and funding! Back in the 70's they needed money to study ways to stop the next Ice Age. Now today they need money to study ways to stop the warming!

In thirty years we will once again be looking at ways to stop the looming ice age. Wake up have a cup of coffee and join the real world. We have well known climate specialists on both sides saying contradictory things. Neither can prove or disprove the others position.

Since I tend to think that other factors we have no control over have a big effect on our weather and climate, I would tend to believe those that point to the increased activity from the Sun as the biggest cause. Mars for example has no humans to influence its climate, yet we see from photos taken that a similar trend is happening on the surface of that planet. Glaciers are shrinking and it correlates with an increase in the Suns activity and strength.

So if the Sun is having that affect upon Mars, why is it not realistic to believe that planet earth is not being affected in a similar manner?

Instead of wasting money on more research, it makes more sense to build a Teflon shield around portions of the earth to reduce the impact of the Sun on our atmosphere.

Plainsman brings up the ethanol issue. The people like Al Gore have focused on a single element and ignore the fact that ethanol from grain has other elements that will cause and equal or greater threat to the climate and the environment. But because it may result in the PET ELEMENT they have chosen to go after it is all good as they say.

Now when Dorgan, and Pooperboy and Conrad come after your guns, make sure you are first in line to hand them in. Because GW is more about politics than science and your favorite party of choice are the ones who are waving the alarm flags!!!!!!

I find it funny that you bring Rush into the discussion. You do this in an attempt to make it sound as if your position is more noble because it disagrees with Rush.

Here is a hint for you, I would bet Rush has a better understanding and knowledge of this issue than you do. I would be willing to bet he has read more about both sides of the debate than Al Gore, or Nancy Pelosi combined. From that he has chosen a position to speak and it is not based upon political lines or agenda's. Unlike you on this issue and others, many of us really look hard into issues before we form an opinion. Instead you grab the kool-aid glass and slam it down, never once stopping to think about what else may have been in the glass.

Just so you can better understand this, I will give you a refresher course!

CRP- I stated and said back 3-4 years ago that the biggest threat will be ethanol!

Gun Control- I said four years ago that with a Rep held Congress no new gun control legislation would come forward. Now a month into Dem controlled House and Senate a bill to bring back the Brady Gun Laws is offered up with even more restrictions!

Taxes- I have said over and over that taxation is to high and our Gov is growing to fast. Yet Conrad and others are saying they need to raise taxes to pay for all the new things that the Gov has to do for us!

Those are just three things that come to mind and all of them come from people with your sheepism and mentality . You never challenge or look at anything the Dems propose as possibly being wrong.

I have as has others pointed out the mistakes the Rep leaders have made. We do not blindly follow and to repeat the words from the movie Animal House " Thank you sir may I have another!"

So tell us Rooster just what are you willing to do to lower your CO2 foot print? Are you willing to move another family into your home or go live with another family so less fossil fuels are used?

Are you willing to give up your hunting and fishing trips as they are deemed unnecessary and extravagant acts that are using more than your fair share of fossil fuels as well?

Until you answer up, all the BS you spout is nothing more than another Hypocrite telling others what they should do while not willing to do them yourself.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ron, sounds like you have yourself convinced. What do I do to reduce C02 emissions? I shut of the lights in my house, I am not one to go out and buy a lot of stuff that I don't need. I drive vehicles that get relatively good gas mileage and are properly tuned. I drive less than the posted speed limit. I keep my tires inflated properly. I have a compost pile. I recyle. I walk to work. In the summer I ride my bike when I could drive. When I built my house I put in 6 inch walls and extra insulation. I have remote demand control and a very efficient heating system(heat pump). I have all highly efficient appliances. I have a garden so I don't eat all processed food. I shop locally as much as I can so I don't have to drive to Fargo or Aberdeen. I only have the basic hunting equipment, guns clothes you name it! Do you want me to continue? What do you do Ron?? You called me a hypocrite before I answered your question! If these things make me a hypocrite in your mind then so be it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, I do many of those things to save money. I guess that would be the same with many people.

Life does have it's irony doesn't it. The more we save, the less jobs are created the poorer the poor become. What to do, what to do?

Rooster, that corn ethanol is not an alternative fuel. If you are involved, you are using more energy to produce it than we get from it. The only reason it can survive is because the government is pumping money into it like water on a forest fire. In other words we are more dependent on the middle east, and it will produce the carbon from the fuel used to produce it and the carbon it contains when it is used. Double your carbon for the price of two. No one involved with corn ethanol has any right to talk to others about global warming and reducing carbon.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Rooster you do some things, but not to the level that AL Gore and the GW alarmist say need to be done! I do believe in conserving, but I will say that when it comes to hunting, I am a lot less likely to do this.

But I am not one that is claiming the current warming trend is all man made! I am also not one to take the word of Al Gore as being truth nor people who without the alarmist hysteria would loose funding.

Nobody without a bias can take the current info on this issue and determine that GW is man made. You can however come to the conclusion that factors not in mans control are the most significant contributors.

Most everything we get in the media has been influenced politically on the subject of GW to the alarmist side. Anyone that questions a study has been shouted down. Much in the same way you try to defend this!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ron, the only greenhouse gases we have the ability to control are the man made ones so if in fact this is a cause it is important that we give it on honest effort. We owe it to ourselves.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Rooster that is my point and they make up such a small % of the total that even if all of the man made gasses where removed the levels would be well above the levels the alarmist are saying we have to be under!!!!!!!!

Look at the data, and you will understand this. CA is suing the auto industry because cars are responsible for 30% of the carbon output in CA. Yet that total carbon output is minuscule in the total carbons that are being released into the air by the ocean or other natural sources. Start getting your arms around the reality of what we are talking about in regards to the input man has on total volume. Once you do that, the alarmism dissipates very quickly, and one realizes that factors like the Sun have a much greater impact!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> provide data to support global warming?


Again you spin and attempt to degrade a simple question you can't or won't answer. You were not asked to provide data to support that global warming exist and you very well know that. You are the one claiming that man is the cause of global warming. Can you or can you not give a site or provide data to support your posted opinions? Don't be embarrassed if it is from Al Gores book or movie. I just want to know where you are getting the information from that is guiding you in forming your opinion. I don't understand why you would turn your nose up at information that can be obtained on the Internet. It is just as valuable as anything you will find in a public library or hear from a lecture by a collage professor or a scientist themselves. On the other hand if you haven't learned by now to never latch onto just one source and run with it then I can understand how you have become confused.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> CA is suing the auto industry because cars are responsible for 30% of the carbon output in CA.


It would be funny if the auto industry just stopped sending vehicles to Kalifornia.

The only reason I would go along with some of this is because it provides opportunity for agriculture conservation programs. Combine that with taking away Lerch's excuse to whine. To bad our teachers have filled the kids heads with so much political bias junk.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ah, yes blame it on the liberals or blame it on the teachers and public education for they do not allow free thinking. Seems like I have heard that before in the political forum. But enough said about global warming and you are either a believer or a non believer when it comes to thinking that we can actually make a difference. So for me enough. Next topic!! If global warming leads to a warmer North Dakota winter, I may be in favor of.........


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DJ, almost 70 here today.......hows your knee I am going in to get my mri tomorrow.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

DJRooster said:


> : If global warming leads to a warmer North Dakota winter, I may be in favor of.........


DJ it scares me when your mind works like mine!!  Yeah whats so bad about less snow and more pool time!!!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Alaska's temps have been well below average for weeks!
So the demacrats should stick to hot temp's in the summer to HYPE - UP their crusade, maybe that way they could suck in more believers :wink:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

NEWS
*Falwell Says Global Warming Tool of Satan*

Bob Allen
03-01-07 
Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell, who has worked for decades to involve conservative Christians in politics, said Sunday the debate over global warming is a tool of Satan being used to distract churches from their primary focus of preaching the gospel.
"If I decide here as the pastor and our deacons decide that we're going to get caught up in the global warming thing, we're not going to be able to reach the masses of souls for Christ, because our attention will be elsewhere, " Falwell said in Sunday's sermon at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va. "That's pretty wise for Satan to concoct."

Falwell urged preachers listening on TV across the country, particularly evangelicals who signed an Evangelical Climate Initiative statement declaring man-made global warming a moral issue: "Don't be duped any longer. The jury is still out on global warming."

Falwell didn't deny the earth is warmer than it once was, but he said fluctuations in the earth's temperature have nothing to do with human activity. He described the "truth" linking global warming to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide gases as the "greatest deception in the history of science."

Falwell quoted a scientist saying the west Antarctic ice shelf has been retreating two inches a year for 10,000 years. "I would back it up to 6,000," Falwell quipped, alluding to an intramural debate between "theistic evolutionist" Christians, who believe life developed over eons in evolutionary processes guided by God, and "young-earth" creationists, who hold God created the earth directly in six 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago.

Falwell said his sermon title alone, "The Myth of Global Warming," would prompt 500 letters to the editor from "tree-huggers and the liberals and anybody who gets upset at any challenge to the alarmism and the hysteria that's going on." He said the debate ought to be about science, but it has been about politics for a long time.

Falwell cited two Bible verses that he said apply to the global-warming debate: Psalm 24:1-2, which declares "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof," and Genesis 8:22, which says there will be seasons of spring, summer, fall and winter for "as long as the earth remains."

"Now that alone ought to let you sleep better at night, after you read Al Gore and attend his 'Inconvenient Truth' film," Falwell said. "It may get him an Oscar, and also get him elected. I mean that what it's all about, politics. The fact is, it's all phony baloney. The fluctuation of temperature is real, and the temperatures have risen somewhat the last few years&#8230;. This is cyclical and has been since God created the earth."

"Now how long will the earth remain?" Falwell asked. "It will remain until the new heavens and the new earth come. And that won't happen until, well, over in the last two chapters of the Bible--after the tribulation, after the thousand-year reign of Christ, then new heavens and new earth. Why? Because the former things are passed away. The earth will go up in dissolution from severe heat. The environmentalists will be really shook up then, because God is going to blow it all away, and bring down new heavens and new earth."

In recent years, "since Al Gore invented the Internet and then accelerated global warming," Falwell said, "our world has been in turmoil."

The "promoters of this alarmism," Falwell said, include the United Nations, which he described as "no friend of the U.S.," liberal politicians, radical environmentalists, liberal clergy, Hollywood and pseudo-scientists.

The Kyoto Treaty, which the European Union is pressuring the United States to sign, Falwell said is "abominable" and would bring America to financial ruin and turn it into a second-rate power. The first step alone, he said, would increase the price of a gallon of gasoline by 35 cents.

Unfortunately, Falwell said, "naïve Christian leaders are also being duped," jumping on a bandwagon with "persons who are on the left of everything."

"I agree every Christian ought to be an environmentalist of reasonable sort," Falwell said. "We should certainly pick up trash. We ought to beautify the earth as best we can. We ought to keep the streams clean. But we shouldn't be hugging trees and worshipping the creation more than we worship the Creator, and that is what global warming is all about."

Falwell said a better name for Gore's film, which later the evening following Falwell's Sunday morning sermon won an Oscar for best documentary, would be "A Convenient Untruth--convenient for him to alarm the people for his own political advantage, without any background."

"He's as much a scientist as I am," Falwell said. "At least I think I do the debates better than he does."

Falwell said there is intense pressure on evangelicals to "join the earthism crowd."

"They think they're doing the right thing and of course they get great press when they do that," Falwell said. "Conservative evangelicals join forces with the liberals, they get applauded, get invited on all the talk shows and so on."

Falwell said all he would have to do "to be the darling of the national media" is to say: "I've changed my mind, I'm pro-choice now. I've changed my mind, I'm pro-gay marriage. I've changed my mind, I'm pro-global warming."

"The Washington Post would have headlines on the front page for me," he continued. "But I'd be a liar and I would have dishonored my calling and what I know to be truth to do that, and I challenge my brothers out there to stop it."

"I want to challenge my preacher brethren that are listening right now," Falwell said. "I want to challenge deacons and Sunday school teachers who are listening right now, all across the nation. Don't be deceived. Don't be caught up with every wind of doctrine. Yes the temperatures are rising, and they will lower again, which does not mean we are going to have a global warming catastrophe or another ice age. It does not, because this is my Father's world, the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and as long as the earth remaineth, our text tell us, there will be spring, and there will be fall and there will be summer and there will be winter, and cold and hot. God has it all under control. We should be responsible environmentalists, but not first-class nuts, like the ECI crowd and the tree-huggers, Al Gore's constituency."

A moderate Baptist ethicist commented that what gets Falwell in trouble "is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows that just isn't so."

"Falwell speaks with the certitude of a no-nothing buffoon," said Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics." His flat-earth theology is wrong. His misuse of the Bible for reactionary politics is wrong. His dichotomy between evangelism and environmentalism is wrong. His demonization of thoughtful pro-environment Christians is wrong."

"Like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell misspeaks every time he speaks," Parham said. "That must create another nightmare for Southern Baptists."

Falwell isn't the only public figure taking on Gore's film. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research made headlines about hypocrisy by reporting Gore's Nashville mansion consumes 20 times energy as the average home.

After reviewing the bills, however, The Tennessean reported Gore appeared to be practicing what he preached. The paper said Gore paid extra premiums to purchase blocks of "green power" produced by renewable energy sources, installed solar panels in a renovation project to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and drives a hybrid SUV.

Bob Allen is managing editor of EthicsDaily.com.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

if Jerry Fallwell says global warming is a myth, then it must be the truth! Now thats what I call convincing evidence. He must have talked to Gohon! Bob, my knee is better but I ain't what I used to be and it takes an old fart a little longer to heal than a young un!! The dogs think that there is hope for me! Looks like my older dog DJ at 14 is starting to have hip problems so it is a sad reality that he may not see next season. But I keep giving him the TLC he deserves so time will tell. I appreciate your concern.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, good luck to both you and your dog DJ. I had a dog when I was young. I became so attached to him that I could not bear seeing the end of another. I have never owned another dog. I sure hope yours sees another season with you both walking and enjoying the outdoors.

Rooster, we may debate politics, but when it gets personal our prayers are with you --- and your dog.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

The one thing that I will not do with my dog is hesitate to use euthanasia. It is very humane and I would not want my dog to suffer anymore than is necessary. He deserves the best that I can do to help him when he needs me. It won't be easy but... Thanks!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

DJRooster said:


> > It's not science your teaching when you include political bias.
> 
> 
> It is not political bias unless you are a man posessed by politics and your own paranoia and want to make everything into left vs right. For you it may be political but for most it is just a matter of opinion and has absolutley nothing to do with politics.


DJ

Teachers shouldn't be teaching opinions at school. They should be teaching long standing facts, and presenting both sides of debates about possible theories on controversial subjects.

If they are teaching an opinion as fact, we as tax payers and parents are left hoping that the teacher believes in our "side" of their opinion, and they they have the emotional and intellectual horsepower to backup their "theories" they teach our youth...

Unfortunately most teachers do not have this horsepower, as they are not often highly trained enough on advanced theories. and instead base much of their "learned" opinion based on what they read in popular media.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Rooster
> 
> Through satellite atmosphere testing a large carbon sink has been identified in the Northern Hemisphere. In North America to be exact. No it isn't CRP, it isn't native prairie, it is wetlands. In total the rain forest may contain more C02, but wood grows slowly and on an annual basis wetlands store more carbon than the rain forest.
> I agree with you it is a shame that politics has tainted science. Both sides are guilty of latching on to fragmental facts and trying to build clubs to beat the other party with. Some clubs are more factual than others like the idiot lady currently trying to expand the "assault weapon" ban to include what you and I would consider sporting arms.
> ...


Great points Plainsman

I whole heartedly agree....

Ryan


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DJ glucosamine chondroitin and hylarauonic acid supplements can give your dog another relatively painfree year of life

this vets out of South Dakota I've spoken to him via emails hes pretty sharp.

http://www.docsdognutriceuticals.iwarp.com/

email him for info hes really into bird dogs and hunting

give the dog a gram of fish oil pills daily with a 400 IU vitamin E pill that will help him also

Could easily give your dog one more season and that may be all he has but if hes not in pain let him live even if he in some pain let him live.

You and I live with pain and we still enjoy life.

I am waiting approval right now for surgery on a torn meniscus in my knee. Dang insurance companies run our lives.


----------

