Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Since global warming "denials" are also not based on science or fact, politically based motives is the most likely explanation. Specifically, protect the immediate profit potentials of exploitation and abuse of the environment, eschew new research and technologies to keep those profits maximized and properly funneled, accept your fate as a consumer, and let future generations piss up their own rope.

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Especially trash the second amendment so that the populace (once they find out they have been screwed) can not fight back as the founding documents authorize.

Jeez, and anyone who maintains our affect on the environment might be worth considering get called "alarmists."

Apropos of most of the rest of the world's stereotyping, Americans represent about 7% of the planet's population, reaping a full third of the resources consumed, producing 5 times the waste and seeming to give somewhat less than half a fuck. What we'd really like is another layer of brightly colored packaging on our fast food so our fat kids can throw it out the window of our hummers with pride.



But seriously, I don't believe these denials, based as they seem to be on nothing but a kind of misguided "anti-liberalism," actually deserve to be called "politically based motives" at all. In the big picture it's really just intellectual laziness, or a kind of mental tinnitus born of prolonged exposure to cognitive dissonance.

...well, dissonance at least.

[albed]

What greater cognitive dissonance can you have than the leading proponents of global warming based restrictions consuming resources and producing waste at a rate that dwarfs the average american's.


And what greater lack of cognition than the unquestioning acceptance of the hypocritical proclamations from those same people.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

A perfect example: because Al Gore has a bigger electric bill than you, the concept of global warming and all concern for the environment is bunk. The 'logical' equivalent of trying to prove god doesn't exist based on the fact that Jimmy Swaggart cavorts with prostitutes.

Too bad being a good little Bushie makes it obvious that your disdain for hypocrites and their agendas is entirely selective or some people might be fooled into thinking you were making some kind of actual point.

And I don't see anyone in this thread exhibiting 'unquestioning acceptance' of global warming, but I guess if you can't win an argument on the merits of what you're actually arguing, you can always try making repetitive distracting noises.

[Nicobie]

Nuclear power generation is the cleanest that there is.

CNC is our only hope for transportation needs. It is total wasted for electricity power generation and we have plenty of it here for 20 years.

I find it disgusting that the tree huggers can not see thru their own scrim. I'd also like to bitch slap any that have more than one kid.

When it comes to walking the walk.....
Mine is on it's way. $1.25/gallon, 39 MPG. 'Phill' it up at home.

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/...lName=Civic+GX

[Nicobie]

66666666666666666666666666

again!

[multi]

Originally Posted by Nicobie

Nuclear power generation is the cleanest that there is.

In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states that there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water".

Despite these copious quantities of waste, the DOE has a goal of cleaning all presently contaminated sites successfully by 2025.The Fernald, Ohio site for example had "31 million pounds of uranium product", "2.5 billion pounds of waste", "2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris", and a "223 acre portion of the underlying Great Miami Aquifer had uranium levels above drinking standards".

The United States currently has at least 108 sites it currently designates as areas that are contaminated and unusable, sometimes many thousands of acres. The DOE wishes to try and clean or mitigate many or all by 2025, however the task can be difficult & it acknowledges that some will never be completely remediated, and just in one of these 108 larger designations, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, there were for example at least "167 known contaminant release sites" in one of the three subdivisions of the 37,000 acre (150 km²) site.

Some of the U.S. sites were smaller in nature, however, and cleanup issues were simpler to address, and the DOE has successfully completed cleanup, or at least closure, of several sites.

The issue of disposal methods for nuclear waste was one of the most pressing current problems the valuable international nuclear industry faced when trying to establish a long term energy production plan, yet there was hope it could be safely solved. In the U.S., the DOE acknowledged much progress in addressing the waste problems of this vital and critical industry, and successful remediation of some contaminated sites, yet also major uncertainties & sometimes complications and setbacks in handling the issue properly, cost effectively, and in the projected time frame. In other countries with lower ability or will to maintain environmental integrity the issue would be more problematic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

Spent nuclear fuel is currently planned for disposal in deep geological formations, such as Yucca Mountain, where it has to be shielded and packaged to prevent its migration to mankind's immediate environment for thousands if not millions of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel


come again?

[albed]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

A perfect example: because Al Gore has a bigger electric bill than you, the concept of global warming and all concern for the environment is bunk. The 'logical' equivalent of trying to prove god doesn't exist based on the fact that Jimmy Swaggart cavorts with prostitutes.

It's actually an example that Al Gore doesn't really have the concern for the environment that he claims or he wouldn't be abusing it to such an extraordinary degree, just as Jimmy Swaggart doesn't really believe god exists or he wouldn't be provoking his wrath.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

And I don't see anyone in this thread exhibiting 'unquestioning acceptance' of global warming, but I guess if you can't win an argument on the merits of what you're actually arguing, you can always try making repetitive distracting noises.

Maybe you should try reading vernarial's posts in this thread as well as your own. Neither raises a single question about the validity of global warming and your own claim that global warming can cause global cooling clearly shows just how unquestioning you in particular are.

[Nicobie]

Hey multi. nuke waste can be stuck in a fucking tin can, When it seems that maybe it might to start to leak [in 50 years.] stick it in another fucking tin can. Don't bury it next to a river and keep it where an eye can be kept on it.

Soon it will be harvested as fresh energy anyway.

It this so hard to figure out?




doG, some of you tree huggers are really DUMB asses

[multi]

oh wow .. what a fucking genious you are NIc..

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by albed

It's actually an example that Al Gore doesn't really have the concern for the environment that he claims or he wouldn't be abusing it to such an extraordinary degree, just as Jimmy Swaggart doesn't really believe god exists or he wouldn't be provoking his wrath.

Neither of those assertions are necessarily true at all in the real world of course, but if such baseless assumptions help you cling to your bias and dysfunctional version of reality, that's your perogative.

Originally Posted by albed

...and your own claim that global warming can cause global cooling clearly shows just how unquestioning you in particular are.

That is not 'my claim,' it is a theory. (You really just can't help spinning everything can you?) I've not taken any position on its truth, but you can't seem to help yourself from insisting I have, apparently, because you don't have a scrap of information to refute it and yet are still determined to deny it for reasons unknown to anyone save that you are 'not convinced.'

For future reference and based on track record, please know that things which have or have not 'convinced albed' hold for me no redeemable value.

When you can prove that this theorem is not true you will have lived up to the rather unlikely position of supreme authority on matters of the future of the environment which you ridiculously project. Until that time you are so much derisive chatter, mocking the the entire concept of man's affect on the environment based solely on your misguided feeling of superiority to any and all individuals who have any true interest in it, lumping these together as a single 'mindless' entity in order to maintain that delsuion.

In fact when you, or Mazer or Drakonix or anyone else who maintains anthropogenic climate changes are "not supported by science" can produce one bit of scientific evidence that conclusively refutes it, (repeating variations of the phrase over and over doesn't count by the way), I will no longer assume we are merely listening to your preferred beliefs ad nauseum and at that time I will revisit the unlikely assertion that you've managed to transcend science and draw a valid conclusion from an inconclusive set of data and get back to you.

Meanwhile, if you really think the current quality and rate of increase of human industry can continue unchecked indefinitely without any environmental repercussions, I suggest you go sit in the garage with your car running for awhile and think about it some more.


Mazer, at last, the real villains are revealed!

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by multi

oh wow .. what a fucking genious you are NIc..

Thank you...

Common sense isn't so common is it.


Maybe you can take a class. Maybe you can get someone to pay for it as it's obvious that you haven't been able to afford it

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Specifically, protect the immediate profit potentials of exploitation and abuse of the environment, eschew new research and technologies to keep those profits maximized and properly funneled, accept your fate as a consumer, and let future generations piss up their own rope.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I'm not gonna go into a "greed is good" rant here but it's known that economic prosperity and the health of the environment are linked and correlate directly. Industries are less abusive of the environment when their profit potentials are assured because then they can afford to conform to EPA standards. Many corporations even find it useful to spend their revenues in advertising to boast of their conservation practices (Shell Oil Company comes immediately to mind). To suggest that new green technologies actually threaten profitability is patent nonsense. If Wall Street had been made in this decade rather than the '80s Michael Douglas would have said "green is good, green is right, green works" and over the next few years we're going to see a lot of businesses stake their bottom lines on the public demand for products that make people feel like their doing their part to save the environment. But the truth is that the economic and industrial boom of the latter half of the last century has already saved the environment, at least here in North America. It is in the developing nations that lack the means to protect their environments where the real crisis is occurring.

The greatest threat to the environment is not greed, it is poverty. Solve global poverty, famine, homelessness, etcetera, and the global environment will recover almost immediately.