I don't hate albore. He's just NOT credible, and therefore, should disappear.
So, Tommy - how come Gore didn't do anything with that when he was in office?
ALGORE's problem is that nobody notices him...............and for good reason..........
Who caused Earth's last ICE AGE?
Who caused it to melt?
No. We're not.
As a GW believer, this statement is CRAP, and one of the problems with this entire argument. WE CAN have it all. All the energy we need, and STILL be "good" about CO2 emissions. Sure, there will be a transitional period, but so what? Thats what we Americans are good at, ADAPTING! Lets go Nuclear, lets use Renewable Fuels. Lets let good ole American Know-How, and Can-Do, do its magic.
All I see from BOTH sides is that awful pessimism about it.
There are ways to "fix" things, and they would be GOOD for the USA, even if GW turned out to be wrong.
As for Al Gore, he can kiss my ash..
The author's attempt to distinguish himself from the right and from the left on this issue is sadly unimpressive.
The only relevant issue in regards to "An Inconvenient Truth" is whether or not the science behind it is solid. Unfortunately, the actual inconvenient truth of global warming is that there is absolutely no way to prove that mankind has a global, and significant impact on climate. The fact that human technology is not going to sit still while we continue to collect observations, the variables of the hypothetical human contribution to climate change are going to continue to change, thus making a scientific analysis of actual cause and effect impossible.
And while the author was correct about there being other reasons besides possible human impacts on climate to regulate emissions, the differences between what global warming proponents propose and what rationally conservative environmental policies propose are radically different. The liberal environmentalists envision a world where there are far fewer humans and very little industry. The rational and conservative environmentalists envision a world where technology and science offset human impact on the environment allowing for growth and development.
When you get right down to it - the liberal solution won't work without a central world government, and genocide of the world's poor. While the genocide might be unintentional - it would be inevitable because the wealthier nations would be unable to afford the expense of aiding the poorer nations. For the most part, the wealthier nations would be only steps away from poverty themselves. And the conservative solution would work either way - if humans are behind global warming, science will probably overcome the problems, but such science takes money to develop into practical technologies. Money that otherwise would be unavailable or misspent under the liberal plan. Or if global warming is not man made, then the conservative plan would help prepare mankind to deal with the consequences of natural climate change.
Liberals have proposed a lose-lose solution. Conservatives have a win-win solution.
Number three: Manbearpig will kill us all. Seriously, nobody disagrees that the "destruction of the Earth by human hands" would be bad; it's just that many of us think that the threat is a laughable hoax.
As a conservative, albeit a fairly moderate one...
Seminar caller.
...I really, really don't like Al Gore. Most Republicans feel the same way, although they might admit to something stronger — hating him.
Right. Slam real conservatives by accusing them of "hate", after claiming to sympathize with their "dislike".
False, false and false.
Soil, air and water are not becoming saturated with toxic wastes.
Rain forests are not disappearing.
Species are not being decimated.
Google (or better yet, another search engine) "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and read the first chapter for news on how environmental extremists twisted and manipulated data to come to these conclusions.
Pro-Life, turned Pro-Abortion Gore? Conservative? Sounds like a liberal trying to make a slander on someone he really doesn't like.
Does global warming exist? The "inconvenient truth" is that it doesn't matter. Even if the theory is hogwash, there are still many other ills caused by the burning of fossil fuels, as well as hundreds of other human activities that are killing the planet. When our soil, air and water are all saturated with toxic wastes, the rainforests are gone and cattle are the Earth's most exotic animals, we may long for the days when someone was blathering about the heat.
Man is destroying the planet.
How much does mankind effect global warming or global cooling? As much as one fart effects air quality in the Huston Astrodome.
I suppose that we could have done better if the election was between GW Bush and Ann Coulter...
Or between Lieberman and Bush. I think I still would have voted for Bush with those choices.
I'm still trying to make sense of this.
Could have something to do with his pathological refusal in 2000 to accept the fact that his constituents were too stupid to mark a ballot and accept defeat, in the process setting the stage for the Bush Derangement Syndrome that has so many seemingly rooting for the enemy in this war.
(I hate that Gore, his cronies on the Left and their opponents on the Right have turned the environment into an "us versus them" issue.)
Sorry, but the Left, including this writer, have done that by using the Environment issue to clobber capitalism, when capitalism is usually the solutions to problems.