Whether global warming is the fault of man or NOT (I’m going with not, by the way).. I think we can all agree that pollution is bad. At least Al Gore has that part right. And yet, get this:

“…raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.” – that comes from a U.N. environmental report.

That seems to be a truely “inconvenient truth” for people in this society, including Gore who seems to lead the way in just ignoring it. People can argue and point fingers about who drives what, air conditioners, and light bulbs.. but they overlook the simplest, easiest way we can all help the environment in the most immense way – our food choices. With the variety of foods we have to choose from, ceasing to eat meat is not hard. I’ve done it myself – not because I’m afraid of global warming, but because I want good things for myself, the environment, as well as the animals. So uh.. why is that point so seldom mentioned?

Is your argument that science can only be trusted if the scientists are not paid?

No, please do not be so silly. Consider the countless scientists funded by Government, the UK Mett Office and the UN are both strongly in favour of reducing CO2 emissions, as is every country signed up to Kyoto (read ‘practically everyone but the US’). You would do better to listen to the science that YOU fund (i.e. in my case the Mett Office) rather than Oil Companies who clearly have alternative interests.

confirmed anti-capitalists, statists and socialists would fund “dodgy science” to advance their aims

The UK Government is ‘anti-capitalist’? I don’t know your understanding of the UK Government, but it is a massive force in the cause of Capitalism. The idea that Global Warming is a ‘liberal’ method of bringing down capitalism – cor blimey your having a Giraffe. When I was a lad I had to trudge through at least two feet of snow every winter – we have had virtually no snow for the last 15 years and approx. 80% of scientists say it is likely to be partly on account of CO2 emissions.

Good point, it’s obviously the first step toward One World Government.

Wow, are you really that naive?

FYI- a new air conditioner works better.

Are you spying on me? How do you know how old my air condioner is? Or do you replace your air conditioner at the beginning of every summer just because…you know…new ones work better?

BTW- the ‘20x’ figure is b.s.

I know. That only counts his electricity use at one of his three homes, doesn’t include his air miles on private jets or road miles in limos or any other consumption. It is probably much higher than 20 times if everything was factored in.

Wow, are you really that sensitive?

Take a look at his recommendations. They’re not so burdensome- and they save you money.

FYI- a new air conditioner works better.

2. ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science.

I’ve seen those reports before, they have been addressed many times. They are based on hyperbole and innuendo. Exxon/Mobile and Esso fund organizations that support their interests. Those interests use the funds to host panel discussions and pay scientists for their work and all of the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork.

According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

“seek to confuse the public”? Interesting choice of words. No way they could be seeking to “clarify the issue for the public” or “further debate on the issue”. No bias evident here…ignore the man behind the curtain.

Is your argument that science can only be trusted if the scientists are not paid? So are you contending that all of the global warming proponents are working pro-bono? I didn’t think so. You just trust the source of the funding because…you agree with the conclusions?

Would you not question how/why Exxon Mobil seems to come out with science that differs so much from the “consensus”?

Absolutely…assuming that the consensus position even made any sense. I DID question it at first, until I started looking at the source data and comparing the conclusions reached by the two competing positions. In the age of the Internet, you don’t HAVE to accept one group’s spin or another’s, you can readily find the data upon which they base their claims and evaluate it for yourself.

When one group adds 2+2 and comes up with 4 and the other group adds 2+2 and comes up with 86…It’s pretty clear to me which position I’m going to get behind regardless of who funded which mathematician.

I posted a link to a site from a global warming proponent that said very clearly that the data does not support the “consensus” but then mindlessly repeated the consensus position as if it were proven fact.

If it was just the “big oil” funded study data that refuted the consensus position, I’d be a bit less certain about it…I apologize ahead of time for shouting but the message just doesn’t seem to be making it through at a normal tone of voice…THE DATA FROM THE GLOBAL WARMING PROPONENTS THEMSELVES DOESN’T SUPPORT THEIR HYPOTHESIS. There is problem after problem after problem with the conclusions they draw from the data and they just gloss over them or ignore them outright.

Is it possible that an industry would fund “dodgy science” to support their industry? Of course it is. Just as it is possible that confirmed anti-capitalists, statists and socialists would fund “dodgy science” to advance their aims. Should we automatically ASSUME that the science funded by any given industry is flawed due to that funding? Of course not. LOOK AT THE DATA. In this case, the data doesn’t support the “consensus” hypothesis.

It just doesn’t get any simpler than that.

You have doggedly refused to address that part of the issue. The only thing you are concerned with is where the research money comes from.

That is not rational debate, that is ideology and yours is getting in the way of your judgment.

I love all of the wailing about the unfairness of the market coming from “capitalism’s great defenders”. Nary a peep about the unfairness that the rich can have the best education, food, housing, medical care, etc. But give them the right to drive their cars and fly on jets more frequently without causing the oceans to flood into our living rooms and people go crazy. Whatever.

Wow. That convoluted logic is amazing.

I haven’t heard ANYONE arguing “unfairness”, What I’ve heard is cries of “hypocricy”. NO ONE is saying that Algore doesn’t have the right to fly on jets, drive SUVs or leave every light in his 28,000 square foot home on 24/7. We are simply pointing out the narcissistic, self-serving, egomaniacal, and blatant hypocricy in his berating Joe and Jane 6-pack for their energy use when he uses 20 TIMES as much all by himself.

Life isn’t fair. Get over it. I couldn’t care less how many times a year Algore flies on a private jet, how big his house is or how many SUVs he has in his driveway…that is, until he starts trying to tell ME how I need to live MY life, what kind of car to own, how big my house should be, how old my air conditioner can be. That’s where the problem is…it has nothing to do with the unfairness of what Algore can afford, it has everything to do with his trying to force standards on everyone else that he fails to live up to himself.

Well, we’re not going to agree no matter on this topic. I don’t believe in the get out of jail free card which is essentially what the very rich will be able to do in contrast to those who will have to sacrifice.

Soooo, on to other topics