For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world.
On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."
This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):
There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in.
I'm sure the sycophantic climate alarmists in the media will be all over this in the days to come...not!
*****Update: Readers should be reminded of an exchange last week between NewsBuster Matthew Vadum and a Gore representative.
If you recall, on April 1, Vadum wrote about how the media are ignoring Gore's global warming profiteering. The following day, Richard Campbell, a spokesman for Gore's Generation Investment Management fund, had an e-mail exchange with Ian Wilhelm from the Chronicle of Philanthropy:
However, Richard Campbell, a spokesman for Generation Investment Management, called the suggestions a “nonsense story.”
In an e-mail message to The Chronicle, he writes that neither Mr. Gore nor any other members of the investment company’s board will make money from the expansion of carbon trading.
“To suggest then that they are somehow benefiting from the growth of this industry betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the carbon offset industry,” he writes.
Now that Gore has admitted having investments in companies that will benefit from global warming hysteria, I wonder if Campbell's opinion might change. Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Just so it's known, I'm
April 11, 2008 - 08:44 ET by SchnikeysJust so it's known, I'm loving every minute of driving my non-hybrid vehicle.
------------------------------------------------------------
“If I had my choice, I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast."
-General Sherman
Al Gore is a Propagandist and a Fraud
April 11, 2008 - 22:10 ET by PopularTechThe same here schnikeys. The bigger the engine the better. : )
Too bad that the propagandist and fraud Al Gore still suckers in new people everyday...
Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOXNews)
35 Inconvenient Truths (Science and Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
23 Scientific Errors (Science and Public Policy Institute)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science and Public Policy Institute)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography)
Hypocrite:
Al Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
- Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine (USA Today)
- From Al to Zinc: Mine Story Shows How a Fatherly Favor Haunts Gore (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Stock Portfolio Exposed (PRNewswire)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)
Al Gore, polluter? (WorldNetDaily)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate (CorpWatch)
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's (CNSNews)
- George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)
Hypocrite Gore Should Practice What He Preaches (The Tech, MIT)
Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore's Record On the Environment (CorpWatch)
Meet the real Al Gore (WorldNetDaily)
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Connections (The Wall Street Journal)
Old-Growth Timber used to Rebuild the Veranda of the Vice Presidential Mansion (Newsweek)
Whose Ox Is Gored? The Former Vice President's Environmental Exaggerations and Hypocrisy (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore Pushes 'Pollution Tax' (NewsMax)
Profiteering:
Al Gore Gets Rich ($100 Million) After White House (ABC News)
Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300 ($6,757) per-minute green speech (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns (WorldNetDaily)
Gore Cashing in on $6 Trillion Energy Business (NewsMax)
Gore makes sustainable investment his business (The Age, Australia)
Gore to Rake in IPO Millions (NewsMax)
Gore Warns on 'Subprime Carbon' Industry (NewsMax)
Global Warming, Inc. (The Wall Street Journal)
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade (Human Events)
Will Not Debate:
Dennis T. Avery Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (The Heartland Institute)
Lord Christopher Monckton Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (Center for Science and Public Policy)
Ivy League Professor Bets Al Gore $10,000 He’s Wrong About Global Warming (NewsBusters)
Why Won’t Al Gore Debate? (The Heartland Institute)
Will Al Gore Melt? If not, why did he chicken out on an interview? (The Wall Street Journal)
Sign the Petition: Al Gore, Debate Global Warming (6500+ Signatures)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
This ought to help out in
April 11, 2008 - 08:45 ET by mattmThis ought to help out in the lawsuit against Alfraud Gore:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
I didn't know John Coleman
April 11, 2008 - 09:07 ET by Indiana JoeI didn't know John Coleman founded TWC. I remember watching him on the Chicago ABC affiliate years ago.
But didn't they have a trial on AGW in England not too long ago? And our side lost, didn't it? With the way liberals skew legalities, that would probably count as a precedent in any trial here.
NBC channel 5 WMAQ was the
April 11, 2008 - 10:06 ET by red_dragon311NBC channel 5 WMAQ was the channel here in Chicago
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
Noel, it might be
April 11, 2008 - 08:57 ET by Hunter12Noel, it might be insightful to add GIM's portfolio list to the post. For example, I think at one time they had BG, formerly British Petroluem, read "natural gas", in the list of companies in the fund and Al was touting how clean gas was.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
AlBore making money?
April 11, 2008 - 08:55 ET by DelsaAl is making money off of the global warmongering hoax?
I for one am just SHOCKED!
NOT!
Shocked AND appalled!
April 11, 2008 - 09:03 ET by Indiana JoeShocked AND appalled!
But the important thing is...
April 11, 2008 - 09:12 ET by Prester John...is that he has good intentions.
How about "saddened and
April 11, 2008 - 09:27 ET by motherbeltHow about "saddened and disappointed" a la Tom Daschle...?
Algore has said all along the that going green would be "good" for the economy, and would create new jobs, and increase profits. He just didn't specify that he meant "for me."
Of course any "new" industry is going to create wealth for whichever companies get in on it. What he doesn't say is that in the end, it's the comsumer that gets it in the neck.
"Greedy corporations" making money while the "little guy" suffers is anathema to liberals like Gore, unless it's their pet industry that's raking it in, and they are the ones profiting by it.
Yeah, nothing like getting
April 11, 2008 - 09:49 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, nothing like getting in on the ground floor of a new industry.
And what better way than to create one, needed or not?
What a scam. P.T. Barnum would be proud.
Dead on target, IJ!!
April 11, 2008 - 09:51 ET by motherbeltDead on target, IJ!!
When Walmart is in.....
April 11, 2008 - 10:18 ET by Polazerus....you know there is money to be made. If anyone had any question whether or not this was a money making emerging market, those doubts should be gone. Walmart would not be in if they didn't see the dollar signs. They are now being eco friendly by selling you reusable bags.
Yeah, nothing like getting
April 11, 2008 - 10:26 ET by JasonCYeah, nothing like getting in on the ground floor of a new industry.
And what better way than to create one, needed or not?
That is the essence of the modern consumer-driven economy. Manufacture desires/problems/voids that people never even knew they had, and then sell the solution. Blu-Ray DVD and hi-def flat-screen TV anyone?
Frankly, we should be outraged at the lot of it. But enough people have been coerced into believing they need (and deserve!) such garbage, that their is only the barest, opiate-like level of resistance.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
I'm not outraged at the stuff I can CHOOSE.
April 11, 2008 - 10:31 ET by sarcasmoI can choose not to buy a new flat screen TV. (And my TV is getting ancient at this point.) I can't choose to buy one without a "V chip" in it, due to control-freakery on the left and right regarding content. And I certainly can't choose for none of my tax dollars to be spent subsidizing failures ranging from ethanol-pork to a corrupt and racist drugwar.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
True, but the majority of
April 11, 2008 - 10:41 ET by JasonCTrue, but the majority of ways in which one can participate in the Green Movement are still highly voluntary. My point is that I resent the implication from manufacturers of consumer goods that my life will be complete if I buy their crap, and the transparency of their attempt to pass off each new thing as a dramatic improvement over its predecessor, as demonstrated by the exponentially higher price tage. Now and then, of course, something genuinely innovative will come off the line. But when I hear someone say they're 'saving up' for a flatscreen TV I just want to ask "Why? Will it make the things you watch better?"
But now I'm just doing my usual song-and-dance bitching about the aesthetics of late capitalism.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Others may call it "capitalism"
April 11, 2008 - 10:50 ET by sarcasmoBut especially after Bear Stearns, we're way too far down the corporate (and now other) welfare socialism toilet for me -- a real capitalist -- to admit to that. This is, if anything, "pre-hyperinflation early-socialist" and not late capitalist, IMO (that was Tricky Dick, at the latest!)..
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
It's fitting that Al Gore used the drug addict metaphore
April 11, 2008 - 08:58 ET by c5thenBecause he is the pusher of an ideology that will kill the economies of any that follow his direction. Notice that he himself is not changing his life-style to save energy.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
But, but, but..... c5, but
April 11, 2008 - 09:30 ET by motherbeltBut, but, but..... c5, but he buys "carbon credits"! Which means he can afford to pay a "consumption tax." The rest of us peons can just walk to work or ride bikes, because we can't afford the extra cost.
It's just more "elitism" and liberal hypocrisy at work.
We are just going to switch
April 11, 2008 - 11:36 ET by ahusserWe are just going to switch roles with the Chinese. They get new cars we get to ride bicycles. American liberals have this utopic fantasy, a blend of a kinder gentler kumbayah communism, mixed with mother earth worship with the noble savage Indians living in perfect harmony with nature (please read the words to John Lennon's "Imagine" to understand this mindset). You know the old hippie commune thing. That's why this Global Warming hoax, fetish and cult is so popular with the left leaning folks it gives them the impetus to attempt to implement their fantasy world, no matter what the economic and political costs are. The want the simple life and civilization.
Dont you know that
April 11, 2008 - 18:02 ET by motherbeltDont you know that socialism can work? The problem until now has been that the "right" people haven't done it!! With our good old USA liberals and all their "good intentions" it will indeed be "Kumbayah" and perfect harmony with nature (and cheaper too, so we'll all get rich!)
<sarc off>
Environmentalism is the new home of Communists (paraphrasing from Rush Limbaugh)
OH yeah...can't you just
April 11, 2008 - 18:08 ET by bigtimerOH yeah...can't you just seeing the leftist women having to use cloth diapers ...they wouldn't know how to handle it... Just one quick example...there are tons more... What these people wish for they would not be able to handle, therapist or no therapist...but they impose their will on others...the simple critters....the hypocrites all...at a cost to all of us.
Just in a disgustd mood today...Jason Lewis subbing for Rush had a good show today on global warming...and all that it entails with the outright lies to-boot.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
i like it, of course
April 11, 2008 - 18:14 ET bythe environmental thing is to do is cloth diapers, smaller houses, nuclear energy, eschew air travel,
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Of course, the only place
April 11, 2008 - 09:00 ET by marpelOf course, the only place we'll be hearing about this is on Newsbusters. The MSM are not going to breathe a word about this. Thanks, Noel!
Time to push the lawsuit
April 11, 2008 - 09:17 ET by 10ksnookerThe hoax is a provable fraud so it ought to be easy to collect damages. Only a Liberal would use his public personna for personal scams. Must be they know the drive by media won't report it.
In other news today the UN IPCC scammers now say their climate predictions are not predictions after all -- they are just likely scenarios. Since the observed facts don't match the hypothetical computer models, something has to give.
Sixteen ton's or years
April 11, 2008 - 09:20 ET by ScrapironThe old song sixteen ton's is about the slave labor required to make a living. It has taken sixteen years and $109 million in the bank for the dimwitted democrats to figure out the Clintons are nothing more than con's. They weren't standing alone when selling national security secrets to the Chinese and pardons to dozens of criminals. Algorabge was right there with his hand in the pot. Rumor has it he has banked over $100 million with the global warming con. Makes me wonder how many democrats should be allowed to walk the streets without a guard from the mental facility they should be in. Now they have their heads up and locked in the butt of an even more dangerous con and member of the chicago crime organization + deep connections to radical Islam. Someone or a lot of someones had better start treatment for their BDS.
At least my niece listened to me and changed her major to the mental health field. One more year of school and she is set to make millions treating BDS in future years.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
More Gore Bore
April 11, 2008 - 09:23 ET by Mulligan22Since we all emmit C02 when we exhale, you'd think he'd be more considerate and shut up for awhile and give the planet a break.
I wonder if he still owns stock in Occidental petroleum, you know one of those "sub-prime" oil companies?
Just a bunch of commies, I guess
April 11, 2008 - 09:28 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistI'm shocked---shocked---that Noel and his readers disapprove of someone who has found what he believes are good investment opportunities, has put some of his own money into those opportunities, and is recommending that other people do likewise.
No...Not exactly.
April 11, 2008 - 09:40 ET by sarcasmoJust as conservatives bitch when I "admit" inconvenient truths for them; you're bitching because Noel "admitted" something, repeatedly, about AlGore's 'pure' motivations that he will not admit himself. In the case of Gore & the color green, is it "the environment" or all the fiat paper he plans to make off of unscientific hysteria? And the corn-ethanol boondoggle is proof that one can make money from unscientific hysteria.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
A-D
April 11, 2008 - 09:47 ET by Noel SheppardA-D,
You're totally misreading this. I am a PURE capitalist. I don't have a problem with folks investing in companies and hawking their investments for their own personal gain.
The problem here is that media aren't reporting it. Instead, his intentions are depicted as pure and altruistic. As far as media are concerned, his actions are all for the good of the planet. BUT, as we now see, this is also about the good of his wallet.
Isn't that newsworthy? After all, even though Dick Cheney sold ALL of his Halliburton stock in 2000, every chance media get to talk about this company and imply that we went to war for Cheney's financial benefit THEY POUNCE ON. Correct?
Well, now there's a former vice president traveling the world demanding we stop burning fossil fuels and, instead, use technologies which he now admits he's invested in. Should this connection be disseminated to the public? Shouldn't folks know that Gore's got money invested in advancing this hysteria?
Or, should such financial ties only be disclosed when Republicans are involved? HMMMMM? ns
Noel, didn't you pen (or "key")
April 11, 2008 - 10:08 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltan blurb last week about how someone was taken to task on a national news broadcast when they suggested that AlGore was profiting from this AGW hysteria? I know I remember this...
The usual Gore hypocrisy and lies
April 11, 2008 - 10:20 ET by dbohttp://www.philanthropy.com/giveandtake/index.php?id=541
Playing Devils Advocate
April 11, 2008 - 10:31 ET by PolazerusAl Gore: I invest in these companies becuase I believe in the product and my intentions are pure.(wink, wink)
Agrarian, then by your
April 11, 2008 - 09:52 ET by bassndudeAgrarian, then by your reasoning, it would be OK for Cheney to have kept his stock in Halliburton, while awarding contracts to said company. Its the same thing. Gore is promoting the green movement, for profit. Not a bad thing. Its a good gig, and it is working for him. But it is a conflict of interest. He promotes the green only because he makes money off of it. Not because the belives it. How many times, in private, has he called folks like you, mindless sheep? Or suckers?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Plus, Gore is trying to
April 11, 2008 - 11:28 ET by HypocriteHaterPlus, Gore is trying to convince governments to do away with fossil fuels which are the competitors to his green fuels that HE invests in. How is that NOT a total conflict of interest?
Are you so blind as not to
April 11, 2008 - 22:13 ET by NL207Are you so blind as not to see the application of government force that Gore is trying to promote in order to make this stupid enterprise of his viable?
At the present, there is NO, that is zero, demand for carbon credits. Without the application of massive government force, there will be no demand for carbon credits. They are useless pieces of paper unless sanctioned by government regulation.
In effect what Gore is doing is demanding that the Government create transeferable, ENFORCEABLE carbon emissions rights which his firm will then buy and sell. Effectively, Gore's business plan calls for his firm to become what amounts to a license bureau for carbon emissions. The DMV in your state is not a private firm. Why should this be any different?
What's particularly
April 11, 2008 - 09:36 ET by dscottWhat's particularly disturbing is that as these people jump on board to buy the suggested stock this in turn artifically bids up the stock, Al Gore's share values go up giving him a nice capital gain. What he is actually doing is running a pyramid scheme which always profits the intitial tiers since their values go up as the next level is built. In essence, when the next tier of people buys the stock at the higher value, that money is transfered to Al Gore's shares. Then Al Gore sells the stock reaping a massive capital gain under guise he is moving his seed money to promote other ventures. If the company fails in the market place, all the rest of the investors loose their money. One thing for sure about liberal boondoogles, they loose money because they are long on talk/sales hype and short on viable product and consumer demand. The sales hype, whatever it might be, is always about distracting the buyer from looking at the fundamentals of the business. This is precisely why giving an Imprimatur is unethical, even by celebrities much less someone in authority.
Now is Al Gore investing in an actual electric car company like Tesla Motors that is producing a viable product attracting consumer demand? Then I might take him seriously.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Gotta admit, AlGore's got a
April 11, 2008 - 10:22 ET by ThisnThatGotta admit, AlGore's got a smooth operation going here. After collecting his Budda Temple ransom, he invented his slick but fake "Global Warming is man-made" movie. He is using his Vice Presidential connections to scheme with some of the shadiest people around to get them to scare enough people into screaming for a solution to his made-up problem. He then invents this Carbon Credits pyramid which he uses as a psuedo-scientific "scorecard" to establish an artificicial baseline to measure everyone's performance. He then buys into technologies that he knows aren't going to be able to replace the energy sources we already have, at the same time saying we're too dumb to develop the technology necessary to mine shale and bogs. He then points back to his scorecard to convince people there's an even-sum game in town, so even though he is using those old, polluting technologies at a great pace, his investments in the new technologies justify his inefficiencies as long as he "pays" for his sins with his Carbon Credits.
Is this man a con man or what? Are we suckers or what?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Noel,I fail to see why
April 11, 2008 - 11:03 ET by LeonNoel,
I fail to see why this is remarkable at all.
Wouldn't stand to reason that you'd invest in products/companies that you believe in?
Look, we all do...
April 11, 2008 - 11:08 ET by sarcasmoAnd most of us disclose our interests (including me, though someone close to this thread has occcasionally whined about it in my case, as if I'd care). The point is that the news media and AlGore are painting this as 100% the environmental type of green when there's a lot of the paper kind involved. When this happens with oil companies and science you get outraged, right? Well, it's happening with Bore, so the conservatives get to be outraged for a change, and in the meanwhile I get to make fun of both sides when they need it, as usual.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Leon, sounds to me like you
April 11, 2008 - 11:12 ET by bassndudeLeon, sounds to me like you think it would be OK for Bush and Cheney to buy stock in Halliburton. It runs along the same lines. After all, it stands to reason that you would buy stock in products/companies that you belive in.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Leon, Maybe because he is
April 11, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Sick-n-TiredLeon,
Maybe because he is pumping $300 million into a new add campaign that promotes a false, fake impending disaster (AGW) that, in turn will equate to BILLIONS of dollars of profits in his carbon offsets company. If he gets the people and the bureaucrats to buy into this issue, which I think has lost a lot of steam (and rightfully so) he will be bigger than Bill Gates.
And AGW'ers try to ridicule scientists who may or may not have received minor funding from energy companies. They don't hold a candle to the Goracle, he takes the cake here in regards to "special interest" funding!!
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
Sick, I really don't see
April 11, 2008 - 12:50 ET by LeonSick,
I really don't see what the problem is. The existence of AGW is irrelevant as to whether or not we should pursue a greener, more environmentally friendly lifestyle. Ultimately, the initiatives AGW supporters suggest are the right decisions for our world.
Let's look at one clear example:
AGW suggestion: Lower emissions (hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, & carbon monoxide)
Reality: Has it been necessary to cut down on our emissions regardless AGW concerns? Yes, entirely. Look anywhere in the world that has heavy car traffic and you'll see a filthy sky. Smog is a real problem. It's clear that if we don't cut our emissions, we can destroy our air. Do you support that type of pollution? You may not think AGW is real, but air pollution is very real. So real, in fact, you can see it.
So, I just don't get it. It seems like you're fighting against AGW solely b/c you dislike its supporters. You're ignoring the overall fact of the matter. We make a lot of pollution. If we don't control our waste, we will have serious problems.
Every single AGW initiative accomplishes this goal, so why fight against it?
I realize you don't get it
April 11, 2008 - 13:31 ET by dscottI realize you don't get it Leon, the point is we don't like a small group of people dictating to us how we live our lives, how we spend our money or how many children we have. It's none of their business, so they should butt out of it. That's called tyranny, the dictatorship of expert busybodies who believe they know better than anyone else and see no problem with forcing their opinions on us.
But let's take your suggestion on face value of lower emissions, we have since the 60's and our air is cleaner than virtually every country in the world, same for water. What more do you want? It's called spending priorities: You can spend 5% of your money to achieve 95% of your goals, by most rational people this makes good economic sense. Or you can spend 95% of your money on getting the last 5% and that is not cost effective or rational. Of course you can quibble with the percentages, but you should have gotten my point by the illustration.
Secondly, with the progress in technology what is not economically feasible today "may" be economically feasible tomorrow. Why not wait on R&D as we are currently investing in to achieve better results without harming people? Good example is ethanol, so now we are set to starve the worlds poor people because we don't have an economic means to convert cellulose to ethanol, instead we use corn. Do you see our point?
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
dscott, It's not tyranny
April 11, 2008 - 13:41 ET by Leondscott,
It's not tyranny for someone to tell you that what you're doing is wrong.
Was it wrong for the government to establish environmental guidelines and rules in the first place or should we have just let our industries continuing polluting our environment unchecked? If somebody hadn't stepped in, the world could be a disaster today.
Companies literally used to dump toxic waste directly into our waterways. Was it tyrannical for someone to finally tell them to stop? To tell them it was wrong?
Things like the EPA's "Superfund"
April 11, 2008 - 13:53 ET by sarcasmoLiterally give 90% of their value to lawyers, Leon, and these lawyers and hyperpowerful regulatory agencies like the EPA do far more than tell people what they're doing is wrong. The legal system could have taken care of a lot of pollution as a trespass crime, since that's what it is. The problem is all this publicly owned land, like "our" waterways, with no individual owner to get angry & sue the crap out of polluters. Everyone in the "capitalist" USA instead relies entirely on big government to protect "our" resources, despite the fact that we can now see from Eastern Europe just how well that worked.
Would lawyers still make out like bandits under such a fiscally-responsible property rights based system as libertarians like me have proposed for the past few decades, mostly to the sound of idiotic media-silence instead of debate? Yes, but they wouldn't take such a HUGE slice of the pie as they do with a Nixonian EPA. Nobody here (AFAIK) disputes the "pollution is wrong" part, we dispute the crappy science that always seems to be biased towards control freakery by an ever-growing obese government. I'm as anti-pollution as any "Green," and I've personally planted more trees than more than 99% of 'em, I'm sure. Some of these oak & cypress trees are now probably as big around at the base as my gut, which isn't too small anymore.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Leon, we the people,
April 11, 2008 - 14:58 ET by dscottLeon, we the people, through our elected representatives created the EPA, and the laws that govern our society. The EPA did not come into existance outside of our elected government by some unelected click. We the people, get to determine the laws not some unelected group of power hungry schemers. As Sarc pointed out, everyone has the right to sue the bejebbers out of anyone who negatively impacts us.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Oh my God Leon, are you
April 11, 2008 - 15:09 ET by JungusOh my God Leon, are you really that blind?
Being told that we are doing something wrong is one thing. What is happening here is that they are using the force of law to MAKE us do something.
Perhapse an illistration is needed: How would you like a law that forced you to pray to Apollo every morning. Under penalty of a fine and possibly jail time? And this law was passed by the efforts of a guy with a great presentation and money invested in the clergy of Apollo? Especially a guy that long claimed that he was doing all of this for our own good and that he had no other stake in the matter?
That's what we are talking about.
Allow me to complete your good analogy
April 11, 2008 - 15:25 ET by sarcasmoThen, once you imagine the Jungus scenario, imagine not liking it. You decide to express yourself and say so. Then imagine hearing from Apollo's defenders the following claptrap: "It's not tyranny for someone to tell you that what you're doing is wrong." (As if that's the only thing that's happening in most governmental contacts with "their" citizens, which often resemble quiet tyranny due to the power of the government agent to threaten to ruin you in court by literally fighting you with your own tax dollars.)
Can you see now why we're not convinced??? If some idiot is just preaching at me, I can ignore him/her. I have a good track record of ignoring idiot preachers of all sorts. I'm not so good at avoiding the expensive effects of our obese government. And the EPA, which knows nothing of all those trees I planted and doesn't care, is far from the only tyranny problem these days, whether or not a clueless news media will ever use the word.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Leon, you mention smog.
April 11, 2008 - 13:30 ET by Gary P JacksonLeon, you mention smog. That's a phenomenon of nature as much as anything else. The LA area is in a basin, a hole. The surrounding mountains hold the bad air in. It's a real problem, for areas that are affected. But even if "global warming" was real, it would have absolutely nothing to do with smog.
California has had various emissions requirements for cars since the mid 1960s, and even though the amount of people, and vehicles have grown, the air is cleaner than it was before the problem was worked on. Newer cars all have computer control that have refined their ability to run cleaner than ever before.
Unfortunately, instead of using logic and reason, you are going off of "feelings". That of course is what crooks like Algore depend on. His entire hoax depends on people checking their intelligence at the door, and getting caught up in their feelings. Science is NOT about feelings, it's about facts. And the facts are not on Algore's side.
Gary, 1) Smog is a
April 11, 2008 - 13:38 ET by LeonGary,
1) Smog is a phenomenon of nature? Really? Was there smog before industry? Was there smog in the ancestral environment. Point is, with enough cars, there would be smog every, regardless of the natural environment.
2) As I said in my post, AGW has nothing to do with it. My point is that you're fighting against supporters of AGW for their beliefs, but meanwhile, their prescriptions for the environment are right whether AGW exists or not.
3) Yes the air is cleaner than before the problem was worked on, but not even close to as clean as it was before there even was a root of the problem. The point is lower emissions are good for us. The AGW people are certainly right about that.
4) I'm not sure what these feelings are that you're talking about. Concerning pollution, I'm not feeling anything, I'm SEEING it. We are destroying our environment. All aspects of it. Land, air, and water. As I said, AGW is irrelevant as to whether or not we should make moves towards a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. I'm not sure that it exists as they say it does, but that doesn't change the fact that I support all of the moves they suggest to combat it b/c in attempting to combat AGW they're dealing with real, tangible problems that we need to address.
Smog is mostly Ozone
April 11, 2008 - 13:50 ET by CobraMan"Smog" is mostly comprised of Ozone, a naturally occurring molecule that is generated by various processes including forest fires and lightning.
Look at it this way, we're not polluting nature and killing ourselves by generating smog, we're just replacing the natural Ozone that is destroyed by the absorption of ultraviolet light and which, in return, saves us from dying from skin cancer. By generating new Ozone, we are doing our best to close the Ozone "hole" over the poles and we are saving millions of people from excessive exposure to harmful UV's and the melanoma that UV causes. What's wrong with that?
Come on Cobra, That's the
April 11, 2008 - 13:52 ET by LeonCome on Cobra,
That's the most absurd thing I've ever read.
The sky is not supposed to be brown. There's no argument that you could make supporting the claim that smog isn't bad for us or our environment.
What color is it "suppose" to be?
April 11, 2008 - 14:18 ET by CobraMan"The sky is not supposed to be brown."
Talk about absurd arguments! Just what makes you, or anyone else for that matter, an expert about what color the sky is SUPPOSED to be, Leon? The “color” of the atmosphere changes according to the components of which it is comprised. It's not SUPPOSED to be anything. It's dynamic and it evolves over time. What color does volcano produce in the sky, Leon? How about forest fires?
Here’s a perfect example of the “color” of the sky, Leon: Back in the 80's, several volcanoes erupted around the world and spewed trillions of tons of sulfur dioxide, sulfur monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene, hydrazine, and hundreds of other rather nasty and potentially deadly gasses into the sky. Those volcanoes also released thousands of cubic miles of silicon dust into the sky. That gas and dust is DEADLY when inhaled Leon. But it’s also natural. I remember the beautiful sunsets we had that lasted for MONTHS. So, Leon, tell me, was all that gas and dust that turned the sky brown and red for months, and lasted in the sky for years, SUPPOSED to be there?
But, to quell your displaced anger, I was just being sarcastic. But you have to admit; you have no idea as to what “color” the sky is SUPPOSED to be any more than I do.
Ugh, that post was
April 11, 2008 - 14:40 ET by LeonUgh, that post was painful.
My point was clear regardless of your bobbing and weaving.
Painfull only to you.
April 11, 2008 - 15:02 ET by CobraManIt's painful only to you as it highlights your lack of understanding about the real world and how it works.
In case you haven't noticed, many of the gasses released by natural events like forest fires and volcanoes are the same chemicals that comprise "human" smog. The natural world produced hundreds of time as much smog every year than mankind does. In that regard, your point is as "clear" as dirt.
citation please. Do you
April 11, 2008 - 15:05 ET by Leoncitation please.
Do you just make this stuff up?
You're probably right though, the smog over LA is definitely from forest fires and volcanoes and NOT cars.
Look up smog in Wikipedia
April 11, 2008 - 15:17 ET by JungusLook up smog in Wikipedia buddy, Smog = smoke + fog. It is natural, and it was there before the first white settlers from what I have heard.
anyhwho: http://en.wikipedia....
Leon,I believe that
April 11, 2008 - 14:29 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
I believe that Noel, in this post, is NOT debating the validity of Global Warming. I believe his point is that in the past Al Gore has denied getting rich out of his believe and push that Global Warming is man made.
Now, you seemed to have ignore questions asked of you. Do you think it would be ok for President Bush and Cheney to invest in Halliburton stock?
You are dancing around the issue.
Furthermore, why would you believe anything Al Gore has to say, if he can't even be honest about his investments and about him getting rich out of his push for people to believe that man made Global Warming is real.
One more thing Leon....remember in the 80s and 90s when the Environmentalist were going crazy about the Ozone layer? Remember that we were told...ahhhh!!! the end, the end is near, there is a hole in the Ozone layer, nothing we can do. All of a sudden....shhhh, silence from the environmentalits, from the scientists, why? Because the Ozone layer repaired itself.
I believe that it is quite amusing to believe that we little humans can destroy the planet. The Earth, nature will always find a way to come back.
And also let us not forget, in the 1960s, it was overpopulation. Countless articles and books were written claiming that by the 1990s and the turn of the century the world would be overpopulated and there would be civil wars raging all over the world, from the USA, to Argentina, etc.
Oooops! The Liberals really missed the mark on that one, right?
then in th e1970s it was man made Global Cooling. Articles, bookss, etc were written.
Oooops, once again, the Liberals missed the mark on this one too.
Now, it is Global Warming......and as we have seen, it looks like you Liberals are once again missing the mark.
The point to all these so called man made disasters is for politicians and Liberals to convince people that we need more government involvement and control. to convince people that socialism and communism is ok.
I find it amusing how Liberals use the hypocrisy of some priests to discredit the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings, yet these same Liberals stay silent about the hypocrisy of Liberals like Al Gore and do not use this hypocrisy to destroy the teachings of Global Warming, etc.
Leon, you have been fooled my friend. Man made Global Warming is a hoax and Al Gore is laughing at individuals like you, all the way to the bank.
→ fut
April 11, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Cool ArrowI'm thinking Cheney and Bush are invested in blind trusts.
I could be wrong.
♣ a seal
I believe they are.
April 11, 2008 - 14:52 ET by CobraManI believe they rely on blind trusts to invest their money. They have no control as to what stocks those trusts will buy or companies those trusts will support. That's done to avoid apparent hypocrisy and possible claims of corruption.
Al, on the other hand, does not rely on blind trusts. He has total control as to what stocks or companies he may wish to invest his money and support into. That leaves him wide open as to questions of hypocrisy and claims of corruption.
Fut, Can you actually
April 11, 2008 - 14:39 ET by LeonFut,
Can you actually read your post and tell me it doesn't look like it was written by a petulant child?
My point is simple. Why fight against something when all the behaviors they're advocating are right?
PS did you get a chance to apologize to Curt yet for calling him wrong when it was you that was dead wrong? Ha. Did you look up the defniton of "full" yet? It was so much fun to watch you scream like kid that didn't get the toy he wanted in the toy store and end up being dead wrong. Priceless. Hahaha.
Leon, Will you ever
April 11, 2008 - 14:47 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
Will you ever mature? wow.
1) You are one of the first ones to attack the hypocrisy of anyone on the right....yet you accept Al Gore's hypocrisy?
2) All the behavior's that they are advocating are right? So, you are saying that it is ok for Al Gore to pollute as much as he can, but us the little people should be riding bikes to work?
3) Please Leon, you, Curt, Cool Arrow, Trach, etc, 100% wrong on the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope never said what you, Curt, Boston.com and The Guaridan interpreted that he said. AND even he said it, it was NOT infallible. I don't expect you to admit you are wrong or even see how wrong you are.
It is quite fun to see you laugh at things you don't have the mental capacity to understand.
Leon, once again, man made Globla Warming is a lie....and Al Gore is laughing at you and all those that have bought into his lie...all the way to the bank.
By the way, I hope then that you never, ever, ever try to discredit any institution, any political movement, etc based on the hypocrisy of its members.
and I see, nothing to say about the fake Ozone layer hysteria, 1960s Overpopulation hysteria, 1970s Global Cooling hysteria....I understand Leon....ignore the FACTS that prove you wrong.
Liberals, always with blinders on.
→ fut serving menudo
April 11, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Cool ArrowWas that an add hominy attack?
♣ a seal
Fut, Go back and read the
April 11, 2008 - 14:53 ET by LeonFut,
Go back and read the thread. Nothing was interprested. I posted you the exact document that those newspapers were commenting on. Hand written by the Pope. Doesn't get much more direct than that.
The fact of the matter is you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to ecclesial communities or the path to salvation.
You're amazingly dense. It's terrifying to think that you will spread your childish, whiny behaviors onto your own children.
An admissions director that hates students might be the saddest thing I've ever heard of.
Leon, Eh?! Liar, you
April 11, 2008 - 15:35 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
Eh?!
Liar, you linked me to The Guardian and Boston.com, never to the documents that The Guardian and Boston.com used to report on.Furthermore, once again, you Curt and Cool Arrow do not understand the infallibility of the Pope when it comes to matters of faith and moral. So, you all assume things that are untrue.
I find it amusing that you, Leon, would call anyone on NB dense. Looked in the mirror lately? Obviously not.
Stop projecting who you are unto others.
Not only are you dense, you are poorly educated and you constantly believe everything that the MSM tells you to believe.
I feel truly sorry for individuals like you. How can you live in such a disgusting pool of ignorance? But like a typical Liberal, you rather live in ignorance than ever work hard at finding out the truth.
→ I understand it futbol
April 11, 2008 - 15:41 ET by Cool ArrowWhen it has been declared, ex cathedra has been used to pollute the faith and bring in more money.
Silly that two requirements of salvation within the Church are barely over 100 years old.
Commanding that they observe days? How silly.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, What?!!
April 11, 2008 - 15:48 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
What?!! more lies about the Church. Where does your hate, lies and ignorance about the Church end? where Cool Arrow?
to bring it more money? Typical anti-Catholic, don't know Catholicism attack. Please get a new attack, this one is old and it has been proven wrong countless of times.
Funny how you don't mention that the Roman Catholic Church is the institution that gives the most charity around the world.
Funny how you don't mention that Catholic priests, monks, nuns, etc don't get paid a penny and yet go to third world nations to end the great ignorance of the world. They teach math, how to read, history, etc, etc. Without any pay!
The two requirenments of the Church for salvation are barely 100 years old?! this should be fun....care to claim what these are?
I am sure it is just like your....."It was only in 1864 that the infallibility of the Pope was discovered"....I proved you wrong and you stayed silent. The infallibility of the Pope, Bishops when it comes ONLY to matters of faith and morals has been taught and preached in the Roman Catholic Church since at least the 9th century.
→ Easy fut
April 11, 2008 - 16:04 ET by Cool ArrowAnd this is my last post on the subject since you are so good at revisionist history.
Immaculate Conception. Absolutely unsupported in Scripture, but proclaimed "infallibly" in 1854 by Pius IX.
Assumption. Again unsupported scripturally and declared "infallibly" in 1950 by Pius XII.
Prior to the dates provided, disbelief in either of these doctrines was not heresy. So they invented two more "Holy days of Obligation"
Commanding under pain of Mortal sin that all Catholics attend. Creating occasion of sin. ludicrous.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, Oh Cool
April 11, 2008 - 16:21 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Oh Cool Arrow, no, it can't be. I have proven you wrong and you run away. How sad, how truly Liberal of you. Pathetic.
You are the one that is ignorant about Church History, you don't revise it, you make it up.
I dare you to read St. Thomas Aquinas and his teachings on infallibility, I dare you to read 9th century Catholic theologians, you will find teachings of infallibility.
what you don't like the truth?
Don't worry, I understand, you are comfortable with your anti-Catholic stances and you are afraid that digging deeper into the truth, will prove you wrong. No different than a Liberal.
Sorry guy, both the Assumption and Immaculate Conception can be proven.
Not that you care about the truth. it is easier to spew out hate, hearsay, etc. and be comfortable with ones believes than to actually do research and find out the truth.
and yes, these two things are infallible. What you fail to understand is that these two Truths have always existed. That just like science discovers new things, you can say that the Church "discovered" these. But the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption have always been there.
It is like saying, "convinient, scientist just made up that there are smaller particles than atoms." WRONG!!
they were always there, that we didn't know they were there is something else.
here to try to educate you...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
Man, I missed all the fun
April 11, 2008 - 16:23 ET by balboaMan, I missed all the fun today!
The best part of the Immaculate Conception was that Franco ran it all the way back for a touchdown.
Good one, Bal
April 11, 2008 - 16:26 ET by sarcasmoI thought you were younger than that!! Or is it that famous?
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Truth be told, I was very
April 11, 2008 - 16:29 ET by balboaTruth be told, I was very young when it happened.
Bal, Fun for everyone but
April 11, 2008 - 16:26 ET by LeonBal,
Fun for everyone but Fut.
Guy looked absurd the past two days. It hurts when you proclaim to be an expert on something but end up not knowing anything about it.
Ouch.
Seconded.
April 11, 2008 - 16:29 ET by tracheostomyLeon: Guy looked absurd the past two days. It hurts when you proclaim to be an expert on something but end up not knowing anything about it.
Agreed.
Maybe he's relying on the authority of his family members to back him up. One wonders if he's ever really sat down and read the Bible to begin with.
>;)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Leon and Trach... Wow,
April 11, 2008 - 16:37 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon and Trach...
Wow, would you look at that...teaming up.
Trach, you aren't a Christian, you don't have a clue to what you are talkign about when it comes to the Roman catholic Church, much like Leon, Curt, Cool Arrow....
let us not forget that according to you, the Bible says that God is hateful, limited by time and lack of free will.
also let us not forget that individuals like you, Cool Arrow, Curt claim that the Bible is THE ultimate authority for the word of God and how to reach Heaven, yet all of you interpret in a matter to suit your believes
You never did tell me where icould find that Bible part that shows how to connect Bible chapters and verses. Oh ooops, I forgot, to you the Bible is THE ultimate authority, but you, pathetic Sproul, Calvin have the power to interpret the Bible, right? not anyone else.
How's that McDonald's Menu religion going?
Leon, oh please....you don't even believe in religion and here you are speaking of that which you hate.
Research infallibility within the Church, research what it means, who has it and what conditions need to exist and what subject matters is the Pope infallible.
Until then, the only fools here, when it comes to knowing the Church, her history, and Her teachings are YOU, Cool Arrow, Trach and Curt.
I just love it how outsiders who do not know the Church, who either never practice it, who have always thought ill of it, are going to tell Catholics what the Church is really all about.
Funny thing is that Trach, Cool Arrow, etc get all defensive if I dare tell them what their religions are all about.
You guys are quite amusing.
As I said yesterday, is like a Democrat telling a Republican what Republicans really believe. How truly idiotic of all of you.
Rolling Fut like a drunk in a bar. . .
April 11, 2008 - 17:02 ET by tracheostomyFut: Wow, would you look at that...teaming up.
LOL! So you'd assume. I was egging Leon about his assumptions about the Bible as well. Leon is as bad as you are. He thinks he knows everything about the Bible like you claim to do, when you're both showing your collective ignorance.
Fut: Trach, you aren't a Christian. . .
Ooo. . .! Cheap shot. You'll have to prove it though. Kinda how Leon has alot to prove as well.
Fut: let us not forget that according to you, the Bible says that God is hateful, limited by time and lack of free will.
I guess. . .if putting words in my mouth makes you feel better. I explained otherwise on two other threads now. You simply refuse to read it.
Fut: also let us not forget that individuals like you, Cool Arrow, Curt claim that the Bible is THE ultimate authority for the word of God and how to reach Heaven, yet all of you interpret in a matter to suit your believes
Yeah, that's what Leon accuses me of as well.
Fut: You never did tell me where icould find that Bible part that shows how to connect Bible chapters and verses. Oh ooops, I forgot, to you the Bible is THE ultimate authority, but you, pathetic Sproul, Calvin have the power to interpret the Bible, right? not anyone else.
Guess you failed to read another one of my posts. Don't make me rub your nose in it.
Or else you don't believe the apostles quite literally did the connecting of the Bible chapters and verses for us (which they did). But you don't seem to get that.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, By your behavior,
April 11, 2008 - 17:09 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
By your behavior, by your attacks on me, by the personal e-mails that you sent me, you proved that you aren't a Christian, but a demagogue, a Pharisee who loves to quote the Bible but doesn't have a CLUE to how to live like a Christian.
Yes, I know, beyond you to understand this.
The rest of your post is stupid, you might as well have written, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ,blah.....meaningless and pointless.
You do great harm to Christianity. It is individuals like you who give ammunition and scare others into becoming atheists and haters of Christianity.
You are NOT a Christian. You proved it yourself with your behavior.
Go preach to someone that is naive enough and uneducated enough to fall for your fake McDonald's Menu cult.
Maybe if you show them the pretty words, and the nice music with Sproul they will fall for it...what do you think? link everyone to Sproul at YouTube...maybe they will fall for you and your Pharisees.
Fut: Yes, I know, beyond
April 11, 2008 - 17:25 ET by tracheostomyFut: Yes, I know, beyond you to understand this.
Beyond you to demonstrate as well. I proved you were a fraud a long time ago, and I can't wait for someone else to take a turn. Why don't you just slap up another Catholic Encyclopedia link? Oh, no. . .I never beat you with your own links, no that never happened, did it? Just ignore that little mess Fut.
Fut: The rest of your post is stupid, you might as well have written, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ,blah.....meaningless and pointless.
If that's how you read them then I agree.
Fut: You do great harm to Christianity.
True Christianity cannot truly be harmed, only covered up and "gradually mitigated" by the authority of men devoted to continual error.
Fut: It is individuals like you who give ammunition and scare others into becoming atheists and haters of Christianity.
Through their faith in emotional subjectivism. But then they (as well as yourself) always hated the word of God to begin with.
Fut: You are NOT a Christian. You proved it yourself with your behavior.
You're saying the authority of my words is in the delivery and not the content. This is your latest failure. To make it even more absurd, you accuse your opponents of the liberal scare tactics and subjectivism you rely on yourself.
However, you've still proven nothing objectively and you're still nothing but a long-winded CHRINO with an ever-shifting argument from authority.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, The authority of
April 11, 2008 - 17:33 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
The authority of your words?!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! hahahaha!!!!
you are funny... who made you an authority on the Bible? Oh wait, I thought the Bible was THE ultimate authority....now you are claiming that your conenction of Bibles and Chapters holds authority?
BWAHAHAHA!!!
You are too blind, to ingrained, too brainwashed to realize how many times I have proven you wrong.
I told you once my hateful, fake Christian friend, if it helps you sleep at night to believe you won something, believe it.
once again, pure blah, blah, blah, blah....just write that. You are so predictable that you can write blah, blah, blah, blah...and I can tell you what you really ment.
hey, do you think i can find in the Bible the chapter and verse that tells us all that PJ has authority when it comes to the Bible? maybe you can point me to the chapter and verse that shows sprould and calvin have this same authority? oh, what's the matter little one....can't find these?
I thought you said the Bible was THE ultimate authority.....Oops!
You are fun Trach.....thanks for the million laughs.
All Fut hears is BLAHBLAH
April 11, 2008 - 18:00 ET by tracheostomyAll Fut hears is
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH
Then he brilliantly replies with
YIP
YIP
YIP
and BWA-HA-HA!
All show and no go.
Try something objective for a change.
Take it to the woodshed. Don't chicken out.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Well, he actually ran it
April 11, 2008 - 17:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberWell, he actually ran it forward, but, hey, we get your meaning...
→ Enough fut
April 11, 2008 - 16:37 ET by Cool ArrowYou knew I couldn't let you trail off with another lie, Mr. Devout Catholic.
"you can say that the Church "discovered" these. But the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption have always been there."
I'll concede this debate if you can show me where I said the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were "discovered" rather than "proclaimed" or declared. Now you'll doubtless claim they are all synonymous. They're not.
If I remember correctly, I used "discovered" when referring to infallibility yesterday.
As has become quite apparent with you, nuance is everything. Facts are nothing.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, Are you truly
April 11, 2008 - 16:54 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Are you truly saying that you never used the word invented?
my friend, you can't be honest when it comes to religious topics can you?
please read back to the post where you posted the two new Holiday Days of Obligations, and you called these teachings and Holiday Days of obligation an invention.
You also said that neither one of these could be proven through scripture....which by the way, NONE of you have shown me were in the Bible I can find the Chapter, verse, map, etc, etc that tells you Protestants, Christian fundamentalists (which I realize the two are not connected) can interpret the Bible, even though you all claim that Bible IS the ultimate authority.
You did use the word invention....did you not?
and debating facts? you have yet to give ONE fact about the Roman Catholic Church.
All you are doing is pulling out teachings, making up teachings of the Church and then telling me why they were created and what they mean.
If you are going to call someone dishonest, PLEASE look in the mirror first.
I proved you wrong about your claim that infallibility was just discovered in 1864 by the Church and your panties got all twisted. You are too blind to see that the ONLY one revising, making up Church history is you.
and if I go with the premise of your questions.....
are you then saying that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are true? or where they invented?
because proclaming, declaring something, I will agree is different than inventing or discovering.....but you did use the word invent...did you not? different than discovering, but way worst on your part.
Regardless, I will also say, scientist have known about things and kept it from the public until they were sure about it and they have made proclamations and declared scientific truths years if not decades after they had researched omething to make sure it was right.
can you concede that maybe, just maybe this is also the case with the Church? probably not, your hate for Her blinds you to any truth.
and furthermore, as I said in an above post, you don't have to believe in the Church to go to Heaven as you, Curt, Leon, Trach claim.
I find it amusing that you would tell me what the Roman Catholic teaches and doesn't teach.
it is like a Democrat telling a Republican what Republicans believe or don't b elieve in.
Your attacks on the Church are as old as the Church itself. Your tactics too.
Trach's, Leon's, Curt's and your slander of the Church are not new tactics.
→ fut, you are embarrassing yourself
April 11, 2008 - 17:06 ET by Cool ArrowOf course I believe the term "invented" applies in reference to those two feasts. They are absolutely invented as Holy days of Obligation. Failure to participate in Mass on these days is a Mortal Sin.
I also contend the RCC invented two sins with these proclaimed feasts, and usurp the authority of God Himself in presuming to have His permission to create occasion of sin.
What I did not say was that the feasts were "discovered".
You are now absolutely lost in your implied untruths and are embarrassing yourself.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, I am
April 11, 2008 - 17:20 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
I am embarrassing myself? Look in the mirror before you attack me.
I am embarrassed for YOU...if you ment this, I agree with you.
There was NO assumption on the part of the Church to create two new sins.
These sins have always been, are and will always be.
It is quite hillarious to see you speak of that which you so clearly do NOT understand.
You don't understand infallibility, if you did, you wouldn't have made the assumption that the Church usurped the authority of God and presumed to have His authority to create two new sins.
The Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit, much like the authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and he can't make a mistake, much like the authors of th eBible couldn't because God is using him much like He used St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John and St. Matthews. They were infallible when they wrote the Gospels, so is the Pope when it comes to matters of Faith and morals, when it comes to Dogma and Doctrine. Get it? are you beginning to understand it?
and my point stands...
It is like claiming that scientists have usurped the authority of God for never knowing until the 20th century that the atom is NOT the smallest particle in the universe as it was believed since the atom was discovered and then presuming they have the power to create new particles smaller than the atom. NO, that's not how it happened, they discovered particles smaller than the atom......get it?
same thing with the Church. They discovered and then proclaimed and declared to the world these sins....they were NEVER new to God.
These sins were discovered, just like the atom and the particles smaller than the atom were discovered.
why does rational go out the window with right wing Christian Fundamentalists when it comes to religion, why?
→ yip yip
April 11, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Cool ArrowTo the woodshed, fut.
Start without me.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, I told you, I
April 11, 2008 - 17:43 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
I told you, I don't need the Woodshed, I am secured in my believes and knowledge of the Church, are you?
i will not waste my time in another pre-recorded Fundamentalist like you. I wasted two whole weeks on Trach....you guys are not worth it. All he did, and all you have done is rewind the "tape" and play it again. It is like all human logic is lost on individuals like you when it comes to religion.
No matter how many times I prove you wrong, you are not man enough to admit that you are wrong. Like it happens every time with a Fundamentlist, you will resort to insults, like you did here and I will not stay quite and return in kind.
so move alon Cool Arrow, we aren't changing anyone's mind any time soon. Keep on making up Church history and Church teachings, I don't want to shake the foundations sof your made up believes. I wouldnn't want to hurt you. Not very Christian of me if I take you to the woodshed.
If you are secured about your believes, so be it.
I know I am right, do you know that you are right?
if I see you attack the Church on Newsbusters.org, I will call you on it, get it? so if you don't like it and you are going to whine and cry like you have been doing so far, do not attack my Faith or church.
You, Trach don't like it when the left attacks your religion, so start living by what you preach and don't attack mine. get it?
don't be such a Pharisee, such a great hypocrite.
→ yip yip
April 11, 2008 - 17:45 ET by Cool ArrowThen adorn it with silver
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, Not to
April 11, 2008 - 16:41 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Not to mention that in order to reach Heaven you don't need to believe in the Church or its teachings.....but ooops, you forgot to mention this teaching of the Church.
As I said, if your ignorance is willful, if you are an intellect, someone in a positon of power and you purposedly mislead people, then in this two instances, God help you. Hell will be waiting for you.
But if your heart, in your mind (and only you and God know what is there) you don't believe in the Church, in its teachings, you can still reach Heaven.
Why Cool Arrow, Leon, etc want to make up Catholic teachings, Dogma, it is beyond me to comprehend. I guess it is easier to attack and lie about that which you don't know much about and hate than to look in the mirror and realize....oops, I was wrong about the Roman Catholic Church.
sad, truly sad.
→ Woodshed fut
April 11, 2008 - 16:48 ET by Cool ArrowTake your nonsense to the woodshed, fut.
I'm not guaranteeing anybody will join you there.
It's too hard to debate somebody who is so proficient at misquoting, twisting facts, and even inventing them when convenient.
Please go to the woodshed.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, You aren't
April 11, 2008 - 17:02 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
You aren't serious? right?
It is you the one that has been making up church history, church teachings, etc, etc, etc.
You just don't like to be challenged in your believes about the Church, about your lies, and slanders of the Church.
I have run into your Fundamentalists and Protestant type before. You fail to realize that it is YOU the one that....how did you put it..." who is so proficient at misquoting, twisting facts, and even inventing them when convenient."
You have misquoted the Church, twisted Church facts and invented Church history and teachings for your convinience.
Don't project who you are unto me.
I don't need the Woodshed, but when I see blatant lies, slanders against the Church, i will call you on it.
I will always defend the Church against her enemies like you, against those that slander her, like you, against those that make up teachings and history about her, like you.
Sorry that you don't like it. I see that you like to challenge people, but you don't want anyone to challenge you.
don't let me catch you lying about the Roman Catholic Church history and teachings, and we will all be ok.
get it, understood? I hope so.
and who are you to demand that this be taken to the Woodshed?
typical, typical.....proven wrong on your made up believes about the Church and all you want to do is run away.
Don't lie, don't slander the Church and we will all be good, understood?
→ fut
April 11, 2008 - 17:26 ET by Cool ArrowYou're cracking up.
OK, already. Maybe you really are entitled to your own facts.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow... Eh?! is
April 11, 2008 - 17:36 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow...
Eh?! is this the best you have when proven that you are a liar, slanderer of the Church?
sad, sad....if I am cracking up, you cracked up a long time ago.
the sad part is that your hatred for the Church blinds you to how ignorant you are about her.
I can only shake my head....sad, truly sad.
→ yip yip
April 11, 2008 - 17:42 ET by Cool Arrowplease take your argument to the woodshed.
Inside you will find a wooden log. Take out your pocket knife and begin carving.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, Don't attack
April 11, 2008 - 17:49 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Don't attack my Faith and Church....and all will be fine.
but I can only shake my head at your immense ignorance and slanders of the Church.
→ yip yip
April 11, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Cool Arrowand fall down to worship it.
♣ a seal
Fut,
April 11, 2008 - 17:51 ET by tracheostomyIf these so-called "slanders" are true, then you should be well-equipped to refute them with the facts.
You have none. Just a bunch of whining about how you don't like the delivery. Sorry no one can sugar-coat it for you.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
CA: Take your nonsense to
April 11, 2008 - 17:05 ET by tracheostomyCA: Take your nonsense to the woodshed, fut. I'm not guaranteeing anybody will join you there.
I got the popcorn. I'd pay real money to watch something like this.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
→ But Trake
April 11, 2008 - 17:12 ET by Cool ArrowHe keeps yipping at my feet with little lies that he knows I won't leave unrefuted.
I'm just gonna be strong and let him say what he will. He's completely lost his ability to follow what has actually been posted even though all he need do is scroll up, cut&paste.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, The problem
April 11, 2008 - 17:26 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
The problem with you, Trach, Curt, etc is that you love, love to attack the Roman Catholic Church.
You love to tell Catholics what our Church is all about, but oh my goodness, God, literally, help anyone if they dare tell you what your religious believe are and what your own religion stands for.
Cool Arrow, complete and utter hypocrisy.
You have slandered, lied, made up Church teachings and Church history.....
you, as Trach are too proud to admit...oops I was wrong.
I am amazed that you would still hold on to your, "...infallibility was only discovered by the Church in 1864..." When I clearly linked you to sources that proved you wrong.
You aren't man enough to admit that you were wrong on your believe of infallibility. I doubt it you are man enough to admit you are wrong on anything else.
I would let it go, if it wasn't for the FACT that you are slandering my religion and my Church.
As I said, avoid lying about the Church and we will have peace and quiet on this subject and we can agree on political and social issues, lie about the Church and I will call you for it.
get it, understood?
yip yip yip
April 11, 2008 - 17:30 ET by Cool ArrowKeep inventing your own facts, fut
CA,
April 11, 2008 - 17:55 ET by tracheostomyHe's drowning in them. It's like he's sliding backwards down a slope of his own lies; running for a foothold and screaming, "My authority is fact!" over and over.
We have enough against him between the two of us to build a nice little comprehensive list.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Fut, I'm not a liar. I
April 11, 2008 - 15:49 ET by LeonFut,
I'm not a liar. I gave you links to Boston Globe and Guardian stories (which you obviously didn't look at based on your comments above) PLUS links to the Vatican directly.
You just ignored it.
You really have to watch these personal attacks, esp. when they're wrong. Looks like you're the liar on this one big guy.
Keep on digging.
Leon, 1) Personal
April 11, 2008 - 16:03 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
1) Personal attacks? they aren't attacks when speaking the truth about someone. You are who you are Leon.
2) Didn't read your links? How the hell would I then know that you linked me up to Boston.com and The Guardian? you are kidding right?
3) Stop lying, you never put up the links to the Vatican documents. Why are you lying?
4) Even if they were Vatican documents, these would need to meet the requirenment of infallibility, which they don't. Get that through your thick skull. THIS IS WHY, Curt is wrong. You don't know or understand infallibility, so you side with the easier, can' t think, don't understand side of the argument. Get a clue my man.
Fut, 1) You called me a
April 11, 2008 - 16:11 ET by LeonFut,
1) You called me a liar but I didn't lie. That's a personal attack.
2) You can see links when you hover your mouse over them before clicking them. please.
4) I did put up the links to the Vatican documents on the other thread. You just chose to ignore them. Why are YOU lying? Pretending it isn't there, staring you in the face, making you look ridiculous won't make it go away.
5) the Document lays out the pope's position from 2000 which the Church stood behind and affirmed in 2007.
To reiterate:
yes i did post the Vatican link. You just chose to ignore it. Here's my post which you have clearly ignored.
LINK
Here's the link to the Pope's exact words from the Vaticans offical website that I shared with you and you ignored.
LINK
Leon, BWAHAHAHA!!! Bishop
April 11, 2008 - 16:27 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
BWAHAHAHA!!! Bishop Raztinger wasn't speaking as the Pope in 2000 you fool. Hey, don't tell anyone, but guess who the Pope was in 2000.....ding! ding! ding! for two thousand points!!! John Paul II. And the winner is.....nope, not you Leon.
There was NO infallibility in Bishop Raztinger's words in 2000. You have YET to grasp and understand this.
Now, you bothered to put up the links. Yesterday your links were only to Boston.com and The Guaridan.
No, it was not a personal attack, you are a liar and we both know it.
Fut, See that's your
April 11, 2008 - 16:30 ET by LeonFut,
See that's your biggest problem. Only taking the time to compete in half the battle.
yes, you are correct about 2000. That is why the articles in 2007 were such a big deal b/c that's when POPE Benedict and the Church officially reaffirmed the truth of his writings in 2000.
I thought you read the stories I posted? Clearly not.
ha. You're the best! The best! The BEST!
I'll accpet your apology whenever you're ready. Loser. haha.
Leon... Furthermore, I
April 11, 2008 - 14:54 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon...
Furthermore, I find it also quite amusing that you went on a crazed out rant yesterday in the Christian post and told me that I needed to accept outside criticism of the Church, Pope, etc....
Now look at you, as blind as you claim that I am regarding the Church, you are blind when it comes to the religion of Global Warming, its messiah Al Gore and the blind masses that follow it. You don't accept outside criticism of these, but you DEMAND that others accept outside criticism of their believes, institution, etc.
*sniff, sniff* Yeap....smells like typical Liberal hypocrisy. Leon please go take a shower....your typical Liberal hypocrisy is stinking up the place.
→ Never fear Leon
April 11, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Cool ArrowI grant thee a plenary indulgence for all sins you might commit during your crusade.
- Popo Gigio
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, If you are
April 11, 2008 - 15:18 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
If you are going to insult the Church with your half-truths and immense ignorance of her teachings and history, please make sure that you at least get a real Pope.
Amazing what ignorance will people believe.
The sad part Cool Arrow is that I have seen you complaint about how some Liberals hate the USA because they are ignorant of its history, Constitution, etc.
and you are no different than these since your hate for the Church and leaving the Church is based on a huge lack of knowledge on your part about the Church.
I am not claiming that I know everything about the Church, but the few times you have brought up things about the Church, you have been 100% wrong, every single time.
List of Popes so that at least you chose a right one.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
futbolisTumbler Say what?
April 11, 2008 - 15:22 ET by Cool ArrowI remember Popo Gigio from back in the days of the Ed Sullivan show.
Cute little Italian mouse. You must've missed it. And when I do quote real popes you hide behind that silly "he didn't say that ex cathedra" nonsense.
WooHoo, I was kidding, I had my fingers crossed. See there, fut, I've got all the qualifications to be pope.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, Fingers
April 11, 2008 - 15:42 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Fingers crossed? Once again, spewing out hatred of that which you know little about. This is stupid Hollywood and Liberal propagand.
Never ceases to amaze me how Christian Fundamentalists will not believe Hollywood and the media when it comes to Republicans, Bush, Conservatives, etc, but they don't have a problem swallowing the lies about the Church from the media and Hollywood.
I truly thought you were better than this. I guess I was wrong.
And ex-cathedra "crap"? Of course it is crap to you because you don't understand it and if you dared believe in it and cared to research it and understand it, it would turn your religious world upside down.
Sorry Cool Arrow, you can claim the Pope said whatever, as long as he didn't say it with infallibility, it is not Dogma and Doctrine.
The Pope can have his own personal world view, even religious views, what he can't do, and it has never been done, is be wrong about matters of faith or doctrine when speaking with infallibility.
Don't like it, tought luck.
Go cry to someone that cares.
You don't like it because it doesn't allow for you lies and ignorance to stick against the Church.
→ Did I say "crap"
April 11, 2008 - 15:50 ET by Cool Arrowfut, there is a difference between "nonsense" and "crap"
Perhaps you should learn to be more honest.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, Oh please!
April 11, 2008 - 16:10 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Oh please! semantics.....here...oops, my bad, you said nonesene, not crap. What's the difference?! We both know what you ment.
You don't know Church history, you don't know what infallibility means or what the conditions are for infallibility, you don't know Church teachings. You slander the Church by claiming that it is all about money, that only in 1864 infallibility was discovered, that the only ways to be saved in the Church are merely 100 years old.
How can I take you seriously when it comes to you talking about the Roman Catholic Church when you have shown such immense ignorance about it?
You do not know the Church, yet you claim to know it. get it?
Through your posts against the Church you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't have a clue about the Roman Catholic Church. You have Cool Arrow.
Please, just like I have seen you ask Liberals, please get to know the Church, it REAL history, its TRUE teachings before you keep on slandering, attacking it and posting as true teachings and history about Her that are 100% wrong.
Let us not forget that this all started yesterday when someone, Curt to be exact, decided to attack the Church and claim that the Church teaches that only Catholics can reach Heaven. All of you are up in arms because I have shown you that this is not the case.
Why is this so hard for you to believe, understand and know? WOW!
Aren't you glad that the Church teaches that anyone can reach Heaven, not only Catholics? Doesn't this speak to the unity of Christians that yesterdays forum was talking about?
So, why do you all need to convince yourself that the Church teaches that only Catholics can reach Heaven? why? Incredible.
Fut, That's amazing that
April 11, 2008 - 15:02 ET by LeonFut,
That's amazing that you are accusing me of going on a crazed rant. Ha. Good one.
I didnt' rant at all. I merely pointed out your ignorance about the religion you claim to know so much about.
I showed you the exact words of Ratzinger that we were discussing. His argument was that there is only one church, the catholic church. The only way you can achieve salvation is through this one church. Thus, if you don't go to a catholic church you can't receive salvation. Simple logic. Don't respond here though, go back to the post. Since yesterday, several people have taken it upon themselves to put you in your place.
I wouldn't really care if you hadn't been so obnoxious and annoying when you claimed that Curt was wrong. The fact that you were actually the one that was wrong is great.
Leon; Exact words spoken
April 11, 2008 - 15:08 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon;
Exact words spoken by the Pope?
You didn't show me this, you showed me the words chosen by Boston.com, The Guardian, that they chose to report on. NOT the Pope's exact words.
The Pope's exact words were not even in English. So what you showed me was a translation and an interpretation of the translated words by Boston.com reporters and The Guaridan reporters.
You didn't prove anything except the FACT that you do not know the Church.
Curt and YOU are still 100% wrong.
1) Obviously you did not understand what the Pope said, you haven't even read his original words.
2) Even if the Pope said this things to a reporter, he was not speaking at the time with infallibility. There are certain conditions that need to exist in order for the Pope's word to be infallible. This was not the case. You and Curt are oblivious to this, so you guys rant and rave about that which you are so clearly ignorant about.
Understand this....you are wrong and do not know what you are talking about.
→ futbolisTumbler
April 11, 2008 - 15:17 ET by Cool ArrowThanks for dropping me from your list this time.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, i haven't
April 11, 2008 - 15:20 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
i haven't dropped you, I didn't include you because Leon didn't refer to you on his post.
You are 100% wrong and quite ignorant about the Roman Catholic Church.
you are, you don't know it, but you are.
→ Well, futTumbler
April 11, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Cool Arrowthanks for the clarification. You don't fool me. I know you're really Tumbler resurrected.
♣ a seal
Fut, yes i did. You
April 11, 2008 - 15:37 ET by LeonFut,
yes i did. You just chose to ignore it. Here's my post which you have clearly ignored.
LINK
Here's the link to the Pope's exact words from the Vaticans offical website that I shared with you and you ignored.
LINK
Did the Boston Globe and the Guardian translate the Pope's original document for the Vatican's website? That seems bizarre. Not sure why you think those newspapers would have translated it for themselves. You think the Vatican doesn't release anything in English? That doesn't make any sense. Great example of you grasping at anything to stay afloat.
1) Not only have I read his original words, but I've already shared them with you. You are the one who doesn't know anything. Ignorance is unbelievable. I can't believe you didn't even look into it after all the heat you got yesterday for being wrong. Ha.
2) The pope didn't say them to a reporter. This statement shows that you never even bothered to read the articles. You saw the links and immediately refused them and then still felt that you could comment on them. That's hilarious. If you had actually read the articles instead of assuming you knew what they said, you would have realized that they were commenting on a document released by the Vatican stating the Pope's own words and beliefs.
It's great to watch you argue about something you really know nothing about. Looking forward to your reply on this one.
Ha. I just noticed this
April 11, 2008 - 14:50 ET by LeonHa. I just noticed this one.
1) The Earth, nature will always find a way to come back.
You know, like, for example, extinct animals. They'll be back.
How do you know? We've only been destroying our environment on any large scale since the industrial revolution. How can you possibly know how the natural world will react to unnatural agents, such as chemicals?
2) There are still holes in the ozone layer and they still cause significant problems. Go to Australia and get back to me.
3) Overpopulation is going to be a problem. What's your point? This one is obvious.
4) So far liberals right about Ozone layer and population. Both your examples. Using your own logic, it would be reasonable to assume they're right about global warming too. Ha.
5) What does global warming have to do with communism? I'd argue that green products are a perfect example of pure capitalism at work.
6) Again, it doesn't matter to me is global warming is real or not b/c I believe that all of the behaviors Al Gore advocates are needed regardless of AGW.
Leon, Eh?! Liberals
April 11, 2008 - 15:02 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon,
Eh?! Liberals right about overpopulation? Do you have a college degree, a high school degree?
the Mao Tsung worshiping Liberals of the 1960s, who carried their little red books predicted that overpopulation would destroy the world by the 1990s. Care to tell when this happened? They claimed, along with scientist of the time that the USA, Canada, the whole world would break down into civil wars because of overpopulation. Care to tell us all the date and time in the 1990s that this happened?
Ozone layer? haha!!! you are NOT serious are you? Liberals were wrong about the Ozone layer.
Animals being extinct is your proof that nature, Earth won't come back?!! So, you are saying that since the dinosaurs are extinct it shows how the Earth can’t counter act human action? hahaha!!
Please man, please, zip that mouth of yours. You look more foolish with every single post.
and...yes, I know that you agree with Al Gore who supports....the poor, the middle class, those that can't afford to buy carbon offsets should change their life styles completely, but the rich people like him, should not. Nice, to know how much you care. Nice to know you support Al Gore's hypocrisy.
The day Al Gore gives up his private jet planes, SUVs, multi-million dollar home, etc, etc and start riding a bike everywhere he goes, I'll believe the crap he spews from his CO2 polluting mouth.
overpopulation
April 11, 2008 - 15:10 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsLiberals of the 1960s, who carried their little red books predicted that overpopulation would destroy the world by the 1990s. Care to tell when this happened?
Ah, yes, the dreaded overpopulation bomb. See here and here for debunking of the progressive claptrap.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Fut, You really are the
April 11, 2008 - 15:26 ET by LeonFut,
You really are the best. So much fun. How old are you really? Seriously, there's no way you're of adult age.
1) Overpopulation is a problem now in some areas and will be major problem in most areas in the future. Any idiot that can do simple math can see that we have finite space available, finite resources available, and science is keeping people alive longer. What does that equal??? More people! Ta Da!!! So while they're timing was wrong, their premise is absolutely correct. What's your point?
2) The depletion of the ozone layer is slowing. You are correct about that (slowing, not stopping and not reversing). But do you know why it's slowing? In large part b/c of the international ban on CFCs. ha. Whoops, you probably shouldn't have brought that on up! Turns out liberals weren't just RIGHT about the problem with the Ozone layer, they were also RIGHT about the solution. You are the best! My man fut, never disappoints.
3) You claimed that the Earth can come back, the natural world always returns. I simply used one example where nature and the earth can't correct, thus rendering your point wrong and worthless.
4) Zip my mouth? I would but I can't keep it closed with all this truth trying to flow out. Ha. I'm having too much fun blasting you to pieces.
5) You don't have to buy carbon offsets to live a more green lifestyle.
6) Could you please show me a single post where I've defended Al Gore's lifestyle? In fact, I've never even really commented no Al Gore, just AGW. So make the hypocrisy charge all you want but it makes no sense since I've never commented on it.
7) Fut, in honor of a lovely friday, I'd like to sing you a song.
Don't go changing, to try and please me,
You never let me down before,
Don't imagine, you're too familiar,
And I don't see you anymore.
I would not leave you, in times of trouble,
We never could have come this far,
I took the good times, I'll take the bad times,
I'll take you just the way you are.
I don't want clever, conversation,
I never want to work that hard,
I just want someone, that I can talk to,
I want you just the way you are.
I need to know that you will always be
The same old someone that I knew,
What will it take till you believe in me,
The way that I believe in you?
Don't ever change Fut. Your obnoxiousness is essential to our fun around here. Cuddles!
They're growing 'em dumber every year, folks.
April 11, 2008 - 15:26 ET by CobraMan"You know, like, for example, extinct animals. They'll be back."
Hay Leon, ever hear to the theory of evolution? You know, the"truth" that those “backward religious conservatives‘" claims doesn't exist and is also something you believe in?
Well, guess what, Lean? That theory states that extinction is NECESSARY and DESIRABLE for life to advance, adapt, and survive in a dynamic environment like what we find on earth. So, I guess, going on that foolish argument you just made, that the religious conservative were right all along and that evolution DOESN'T actually exist, right? That we, and the rest of life on earth, are DOOMED because we’re messing with the natural state, something that the religious people have been saying for centuries? But wait, I thought that the religious people were wrong and that there’s really no such thing as a natural state? Isn’t that what you’ve been telling people for years?
Hay, Leon, you can't have it both ways. That's called hypocrisy and it the same thing we've been saying about Saint Al.
You can't claim that evolution theory is correct then say that extinctions proves that global warming is a eminent catastrophe and will destroy life on earth. After all, life did well after those extinctions and actually advanced enough to produced intelligence creatures such as Mankind, correct?
Cobra, What are you
April 11, 2008 - 15:29 ET by LeonCobra,
What are you talking about? Evolution? I don't get it.
Let's recap the discussion you got involved in.
1) Fut says the Earth can always bounce back regardless of what man does to it. Nature will always return to where it should be
2) Leon posts an example where this is clearly not the case. Extinction
3) Cobra writes irrelevant, rambinlg, disjointed, off-topic post filling Leon's mouth with words.
4) Leon scratches head. Thinks about how good that happy hour beer is going to taste.
It's no wonder you're confused
April 11, 2008 - 15:42 ET by CobraMan"Leon scratches head."
Face it Leon, you're way in over your depth here.
You refuse to admit that the earth produces hundreds of times as many harmful gasses than mankind every year. You ignore any evidence that disproves your theories. You slander and demeaned anyone who disagrees with you by calling their arguments an "irrelevant, rambinlg, disjointed, off-topic post." And you can't admit that you're a hypocrite and even have the gall to claim that people are "filling Leon's mouth with words" when they point out your glairing inconsistencies.
I'll give $100 dollars to
April 11, 2008 - 15:51 ET by LeonI'll give $100 dollars to anyone that can explain the relevance of your evolution post.
We won't have a real-life Jurassic Park, but...
April 11, 2008 - 15:33 ET by sarcasmoIMO not every critter that ever lived can, will, or should come back, but....Considering together the current state of DNA science & the existence of very well-preserved frozen remains in Siberia, I would not be surprised to see living "extinct" wolly mammoths born from African elephants at some point during my lifetime. This isn't quite a prediction, but it's damn close!
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
This isn't quite a
April 11, 2008 - 15:53 ET by dscottThis isn't quite a prediction, but it's damn close!
An extrapolation then? <sarcasm>
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
No, just an expression.
April 11, 2008 - 15:58 ET by sarcasmoI wouldn't be surprised if they did it. A decade ago, I would have been shocked, but not now...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Pot vs Kettle
April 11, 2008 - 11:22 ET by mytwocents"Al Gore betrayed this country!! He played on our fears!!"
There -- I've said it.
Our tax dollars at work.
April 11, 2008 - 13:13 ET by danboOur tax dollars at work. Hansen demands a textbook be changed.
Hansen proves the textbook right. He complains that the text says "activist scientist" are pushing the agenda. Then writes to the text books publisher demanding it be changes.
And under NASA letterhead.
Here
Thanks to.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Ha Ha
April 11, 2008 - 14:33 ET by catnamedjakeTalk about laughing all the way to the bank...."carbon assets"? I guess you can make this stuff up.
Exxon is doing the same as Gore, just not as loudly
April 15, 2008 - 08:59 ET by BlindSightAnd Pres. Bush has said: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
Is Bush being "hysterical" too?
How do we achieve Bush's goal? By pricing carbon (on a shared basis with other countries). While GIM's spokesman may be technically right that Gore won't make any money on emissions trading - that on;y happens if GIM invests in emission rights sellers - Gore's investments in green technologies may certainly do well if they can help meet increased demand for carbon-lite technologies.
While no doubt there are some who don't believe climate change is a real issue but are cynically trying to make a buck by using government, probably most of the corporate leaders who are supporting GHG regulation think it's the right thing to do, in order to create market incentives for what they think needs to get done. And once there's a market, there will be even more money to be made in new technologies - but that's better than having the government through trillions at the problem through direct investments and subsidies.
I'm with you in thinking that Gore should be more straight about this - but should he and everyone who also agrees be embarrassed? Ask Exxon.
What a joke! All this
April 15, 2008 - 09:18 ET by NL207What a joke!
All this proves is that Exxon-Mobil, Duke Energy and every other private sector energy producer are intent of satisfying the maximum demand at the maximum proofit. They are now selling "green" solutions and carbon credits because they perceive a market demand and a PROFIT for doing so. Only kool-aid drinkers like you attribute this behavior to altruistic motives by corporate executives, as much a betrayal of their shareholders as anything your villains at Enron ever did to their shareholders.
Why do you need to explain with altruism that which is perfectly understandable in the context of greed? These are charitable intitutions, they are for-profit entities. They exist for greed's sake.
they are for-profit entities
April 15, 2008 - 13:29 ET by BlindSightExactly - which is why you should not be ignoring their market behavior, including their investments.
Stow your comments about kool-aid drinkers, unless you prefer I simply ignore you. I wasn't talking about selling "green" solutions and carbon credits, which is something you probably could have figured out if you had bothered to think before posting.
I'm quite aware that corporate executives can behave cynically. It's guys like you you say that they're being principle when their position suits you, but craven and unprincipled when not.
Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.