As a person who believes that climate change is affecting our planet I thought this was a poor choice for the Peace Prize. I seems to be more of a political statement by the Nobel Committee than recognizing a persons work towards acheiving peace in this world. I would have thought that climate change would have fallen under one of the other Nobel Prizes.

Yeah, Gore is such an environmental activist just look at how much he's done to cut back on his carbon footprints!

He'll only charge you 100,000 to come do a speech on Global Warming. Part of that cost is to pay for fuel because he'll fly in on his private jet that just put out more emissions than 20 cars. He's so caring, I sure am glad we have someone like Gore out there making sure we all know about global warming! Whatever would we do without him??!!?? :D

I can't believe someone hasn't confronted him about how stupid he looks by preaching about Global Warming and doing nothing to downsize his own emissions.. Buying "Carbon Credits" does not help make it better, prevent the carbon, don't pay someone off! I guess that's a typical fix for a Politician and one they can justify!

Peace prize?

Nobel prize winners should all be ashamed. Heck, Carter has devoted his life to world peace- he should have gotten it.

Peace prize?

Nobel prize winners should all be ashamed. Heck, Carter has devoted his life to world peace- he should have gotten it.

Carter won it in 2002.

:o

And now he's ashamed!

They are both ass clowns

I second that, & dare I say Anti American ASS Clowns

I second that, & dare I say Anti American ASS Clowns

Really and yet both of them were volunteers in our military, Carter being a graduate of Annapolis and other than Eisenhower the longest serving president in our military in the last 100 years. Reagan never served in uniform yet I doubt you would be calling him anti-American. Funny how people have different definitions of what a patriot is.

He did invent the internet, NOT :moon:

Really and yet both of them were volunteers in our military, Carter being a graduate of Annapolis and other than Eisenhower the longest serving president in our military in the last 100 years. Reagan never served in uniform yet I doubt you would be calling him anti-American. Funny how people have different definitions of what a patriot is.
I'm curious about your statement. Since when did military service immunize people from believing or doing foolish things? I served 4 years in the USAF and met some individuals who were among the most reprehensible and unpatriotic people I've had the misfortune to meet. I, and I'm sure many among you, also know many people who've never served in the military, but are great humans and tremendous patriots. We all contribute in different ways. Despite my many years of public service, I don't think I hold a candle to the good that Ronald Reagan and some of his predecessors (both Republican and Democrat) accomplished for our country and the world. The fact that he didn't serve in the military is meaningless in that light.

Peace prize?

Nobel prize winners should all be ashamed.

You mean these guys?
• 1906 - Peace, Theodore Roosevelt
• 1919 - Peace, Woodrow Wilson
• 1964 - Peace, Martin Luther King
• 1979 - Peace, Mother Teresa
• 1983 - Peace, Lech Walesa
• 1984 - Peace, Desmond Tutu
• 1989 - Peace, The 14th Dalai Lama
• 1993 - Peace, Nelson Mandela

How does Al Gore running around the world in his G-5 talking about carbon footprints fit in this list?

I'm curious about your statement. Since when did military service immunize people from believing or doing foolish things? I served 4 years in the USAF and met some individuals who were among the most reprehensible and unpatriotic people I've had the misfortune to meet. I, and I'm sure many among you, also know many people who've never served in the military, but are great humans and tremendous patriots. We all contribute in different ways. Despite my many years of public service, I don't think I hold a candle to the good that Ronald Reagan and some of his predecessors (both Republican and Democrat) accomplished for our country and the world. The fact that he didn't serve in the military is meaningless in that light.

First I am not a Gore fan, that said I used both his and Carters service to their country to show that they at least made an effort to serve their nation. I agree that it isnt a prerequisite, Reagan was patriotic and never served. I don't agree with questioning a persons patriotism just because I don't agree with their politics. Also there is a difference between believing and doing foolish things and being anti-American.

Ronald Reagan served in the US Army Air Corps from 1942 to 1945 and was honorably discharged as a Captain.

So if Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize using unproven, unsubstantiated science and data, then Roy Crabtree should win it next year. Any takers?

...I used both his and Carters service to their country to show that they at least made an effort to serve their nation...Also there is a difference between believing and doing foolish things and being anti-American.
I'm not disagreeing with your first statement. It appeared you were making an assertion that both Carter and Gore's post-military actions are not "unpatriotic" by virtue of their earlier military service. If this was not what you were trying to convey, then I stand corrected. I can think of a number of things Gore has said that are hypocritical and foolish, but nothing that can be classified as "unpatriotic". Carter on the other hand has said things, particularly on foreign soil, that are unbefitting of a past US President.

Carter's actions past and present was what I ment as Anti American. Believe me it pains me to say that about a former president, but actions speak louder than words. He goes to foreign countries and bashes this country, its policies, and its leaders. He has involved himself in conflicts as though he was still president and negotiated on our behalf, during the Bush and Clinton adm. I have no doubt, should Gore get elected to president he would be the same sorry leader Carter was. Pushed around by dictators, double digit inflation and interest rates, and lines for gas.

Carter's actions past and present was what I ment as Anti American. Believe me it pains me to say that about a former president, but actions speak louder than words. He goes to foreign countries and bashes this country, its policies, and its leaders. He has involved himself in conflicts as though he was still president and negotiated on our behalf, during the Bush and Clinton adm. I have no doubt, should Gore get elected to president he would be the same sorry leader Carter was. Pushed around by dictators, double digit inflation and interest rates, and lines for gas.

I understand where your distaste for Carter comes from, it used to be that ex-presidents would refrain from criticizing current ones. Don't know when that tradition ended but we are not better served by it. I doubt Gore would do any worse than the current president but that doesn't entitle him for a Peace Prize. Judging by his stomach size maybe they gave it to hiim for the number of methane producing cows he has eaten.

Are you kidding, I fear for our safety, and wallet if Gore or someone like him gets in office. You can say what you want about Bush, but his adm. has kept us safe in a very unstable time, if those terroist could have hit us again they would have.:BoomSmilie_anim:

There are patr-iots and there are Id-iots,.these two Jackasses are in the idiot category,..prove to me they are not idiots. I would like to see this.

The Nobel Peace prize is meaningless once you give it to a terrorist like Yassir Arafat.

Global warming is a crock of shit, but so is gore, so I guess in that regards he deserves it.

Betty Williams a past Nobel Peace Prize winner made a remark she could kill Bush, but later withdrew the comments after she got some grief about it, that is the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. :thumbup:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn071016.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/opinion/13sat1.html?hp

This could be a good time to invest in guillotine making companies in your 401k.

Wow, the NYT bashing Bush!! How unusual.

Tookie Williams a cop killer who was put to death was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, even people like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Fidel Castro have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

It looks like it is just another meaningless politically correct award, Al Gore's movie is full of lies, yet it is considered a documentary, that many kids in school are forced to watch and accept as fact.

I hear Michael Moore is on tap to win it next.

As a person who believes that climate change is affecting our planet I thought this was a poor choice for the Peace Prize. I seems to be more of a political statement by the Nobel Committee than recognizing a persons work towards acheiving peace in this world. I would have thought that climate change would have fallen under one of the other Nobel Prizes.

:iagree:

In that NY Times article Bill posted, they wrote this:
"There will be skeptics who ask what the Peace Prize has to do with global warming. The committee answered that unhesitatingly with its warning that climate change, if unchecked, could unleash massive migrations, violent competitions for resources and, ultimately, threaten the “security of mankind."

Seems like kind of a stretch for the Peace prize to me, and I personally think that global warming is an issue.

The peace prize ceased having any significance to me on the day they gave it to Arrafat.

The peace prize ceased having any significance to me on the day they gave it to Arrafat.

And the Presidency ceased to have any significance to me the day the Supreme Court gave it to Bush. But I'm going to try to get over it and not hold it against any future recipients of the honor.

And the Presidency ceased to have any significance to me the day the Supreme Court gave it to Bush. But I'm going to try to get over it and not hold it against any future recipients of the honor.


Can't you get over the fact that Bush won the election? :rolleyes:

Gore tried to steal the election and failed.

It sure was nice how the democrats tried to not count the military vote because it wasn't postmarked, apparently none of the mail from the Military personnel overseas is postmarked, but that didn't keep the democrats from trying to suppress the military vote, as a veteran I would think you would be upset over it, but I guess your hatred for Bush clouds your judgement.

Maybe we should start a section call "Why Bill McIntyre Hates George W. Bush".

Peace prize?

Nobel prize winners should all be ashamed. Heck, Carter has devoted his life to world peace- he should have gotten it.

Gore is an idiot, Carter is a communist.

Gore is an idiot, Carter is a communist.

:toast:

Carter El Manicero

Maybe we should start a section call "Why Bill McIntyre Hates George W. Bush".

I'd be glad to contribute. I've lost count of the reasons I, as a lifelong republican, hate Bush.

Can't you get over the fact that Bush won the election? :rolleyes:

Gore tried to steal the election and failed.

It sure was nice how the democrats tried to not count the military vote because it wasn't postmarked, apparently none of the mail from the Military personnel overseas is postmarked, but that didn't keep the democrats from trying to suppress the military vote, as a veteran I would think you would be upset over it, but I guess your hatred for Bush clouds your judgement.

Maybe we should start a section call "Why Bill McIntyre Hates George W. Bush".

:lol:

Back on topic: Gore is a idiot!

Yep, can't think of a politician these days who's not.

I've had a hard time understanding all the hatred of Gore expressed here. This OpEd helps me understand where it comes from.

ctober 15, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Gore Derangement Syndrome

By PAUL KRUGMAN
On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

I've had a hard time understanding all the hatred of Gore expressed here. This OpEd helps me understand where it comes from.

Paul Krugman? :rolleyes:

Although I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions, here's another take...

Gore gets a cold shoulder
Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Who can argue with 100 years of solid scientific consensus?

Date: Oct. 7, 1912
Publication: New York Times
Quote: Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age
Comment: Still encroaching…

Date: June 28, 1923
Publication: Los Angeles Times
Quote: The possibility of another Ice Age already having started… is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak.
Comment: Must be a slow starter.

Date: Aug. 9, 1923
Publication: Chicago Tribune
Quote: Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada
Comment: Still there last time we checked.

Date: December 1932
Publication: The Atlantic
Quote: We must be just teetering on an ice age which some relatively mild geologic action would be sufficient to start going.
Comment: Still teetering.

Date: Feb. 20, 1969
Publication: New York Times from Col. Bernt Bachen
Quote: The Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.
Comment: Santa still is safe.

Date: February 1974
Publication: Fortune magazine from Reid Bryson
Quote: There is very important climatic change going on right now… It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving.
Comment: World population increased by 2.5 billion.

Date: March 1, 1975
Publication: Science News
Quote: The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the “very extraordinary period of warmth” that preceded it.
Comment: If “not soon be reversed” means “reversed by the next decade,” then yes.

Date: March 1, 1975
Publication: Science News
Quote: The temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and shows no sign of reversal.
Comment: So much for climatologists reading the signs correctly.

Date: July-August 1975
Publication: International Wildlife
Quote: But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetimes.
Comment: There’s still time.

Date: 1992
Publication: Al Gore, “Earth in the Balance”
Quote: About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades.
Comment: While periodic monsoons still cause flooding, rising seas have not been a problem.

Date: Feb. 2, 2006
Publication: The Daily Telegraph
Quote: “Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilisation will be reduced to a “broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”, and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive.

Thanks Wayward, Gore like all politicians, jumped on the flavor of the week! And he is an ass.

I watched a special on TV the other night about global warming.....they seem to be confused between the ocean rising and the simple fact that erosion happens. All they kept showing were pieces of land that have suffered erosion, not land covered by rising water. They failed to mention that storms, currents and weather patterns will make land move and disapear.

I think the next award will be a real fight between Opra and Jane Fonda.

I am 42 years old, and I remember in school the big scare was the next ice age and running out of oil, neither has happened.

There was also concern about waters being polluted and air pollution, it seems that the air is cleaner and the water is cleaner, I know there are certain area's that need improvement, but the environment is not in danger as al whore would have us believe.

Dr. William Gray says that humans are not the cause of global warming.

Why doesn't he get much press about his stance?

Dr. William Gray says that humans are not the cause of global warming.

Why doesn't he get much press about his stance?

Because he is not backed by a multimillion dollar gov't grant and the Hollywood bandwagon gang would be my guess.
Now if he could just get Barbara Streisand on his side he might have a chance...or Opra might even be better

guys the earth is getting warmer and the sea levels are rising, its fact

we know this because we have thermometers and rulers

Do you guys doubt the technology behind those devices?

guys the earth is getting warmer and the sea levels are rising, its fact

we know this because we have thermometers and rulers

Do you guys doubt the technology behind those devices?

You're missing the point. The question isn't weather the planet is getting warmer or the sea levels are on the rise, but is this all a result of our SUVs or emissions.

I'm a big fan of George Carlin, who IMO is one of the brightest comedians of all time and certainly not a bastion for conservatism as he is quite liberal in his views. A few years ago, he had this to say about the human threat to Earth. It's a bit long, but well worth it and even better when viewed:

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...***********************************.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

You know on second thought Al Bore must be right, global warming is happening, the poles are melting the sea is rising, just the other day I went by 3 rooker and that bitch is almost under water, why 4 or 5 years ago that island was huge compared to now, how could I have been so stupid as to not pay heed to his message:cool:

You know on second thought Al Bore must be right, global warming is happening, the poles are melting the sea is rising, just the other day I went by 3 rooker and that bitch is almost under water, why 4 or 5 years ago that island was huge compared to now, how could I have been so stupid as to not pay heed to his message:cool:

Actually the Artic ice pack is melting and the temperature in the northern latitudes is increasing. That is a fact that can not be disproved. Whether it is a result of human activity or not, it will affect us. The northern boreal forest of Canada, Alaska, Russia and Scandinavia are experiencing a rapid increase in the amount of infestation of insects due to the warmer temperatures in the Spring and Fall. This has resulted in a greater loss of forest cover in these areas.It is not a good thing in the long term. Ocean temperatures are also increasing in temperature. Again this is an observable fact that cannot be disproved. While the temperature rise is slight you have to take into account that a 1-2 degree rise in ocean temperature has a very negative affect on coral reef growth and development. Ad a spearfishing enthusiast you can see how this will affect you. The debate in climate change is whether it is a result of our activity not whether it is occuring.

Global cooling and warming is cyclic (sp),..The reason its is noticeable now is we have so much technology and communication it makes the changes seem drastic, we know a lot more about how momma nature works now than we did even 20 years ago,.this planet has been heating and cooling for a long time and I don't need some jackass who realy doesn't know salt from shit, and uses more energy in a year than I do probably in my lifetime to get up on a soap box,
And for any boater/diver who wants to jump on the bandwagon with assclown Al,..they sell oars at boaters world.

Global cooling and warming is cyclic (sp),..The reason its is noticeable now is we have so much technology and communication it makes the changes seem drastic, we know a lot more about how momma nature works now than we did even 20 years ago,.this planet has been heating and cooling for a long time and I don't need some jackass who realy doesn't know salt from shit, and uses more energy in a year than I do probably in my lifetime to get up on a soap box,
And for any boater/diver who wants to jump on the bandwagon with assclown Al,..they sell oars at boaters world.

You are right to a degree, except about Gore then you are right 100%. Most of the scientific evidence supports the general thesis that man is having an adverse effect on the temperature of our planet. I have no problem supporting more science in this field. The one thing noone brings up in the whole global warmong debate is that it doesn't matter if humans are responsible because we are not about to change our energy consumption habits on a global scale. Even the people I know who take it seriously and try to limit their energy usage still use more energy than pretty much any person in Africa and most people in S. America or Asia. And when was the last time an environmentalist came out in favor of nuclear energy with its zero carbon emissions.

Are you kidding, I fear for our safety, and wallet if Gore or someone like him gets in office. You can say what you want about Bush, but his adm. has kept us safe in a very unstable time, if those terroist could have hit us again they would have.:BoomSmilie_anim:


Damn Staight!!! :toast::toast:

And when was the last time an environmentalist came out in favor of nuclear energy with its zero carbon emissions.

"Recently, Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace in 1971 and subsequently its president, has berated those who lobby against "clean nuclear energy". He said that "activists have abandoned science in favour of sensationalism" and pointed out that "nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Going-nuclear-its-the-new-green/2005/04/27/1114462096097.html

The tree huggers are slowly adopting nuclear. I've been investing in mining companies over the past year and have made some considerable jingle.