Well he is an easy target.
- Status
A
a_burger
Guest
I will answer the Al Gore question in a minute.
First I want to give you my opinion of Ronald Reagan. I will do this because I don’t want to present myself as a radical conservative. Ronald Reagan did one of the most dishonest things ever done in governement. Reagan had originally given his major tax cuts to the rich. This plan wasn’t working. Here is what Reagan did. Originally self employed people paid about 9% social security. People like farmers could pay their wives a small amount of pay which wasn’t taxable by social security. Reagan raised the self employed rate to 14%. He also took the social security exemption away from the farmer’s wives. He took that revenue and put in right into the general fund to make it look like his tax cuts. That way he could take from the poor and give to the rich. Remember George H Bush called this voodoo economics. I call it trickle up economics. I was in a franchised business then. There were 500 independent owners. Five years later with the 5% of our income going to the rich we were out of business. The entire franchise no longer exists.
Now its Al Gore’s turn. Up until this time I thought this thing Reagan pulled off was the worst. Al Gore was in charge of removing jobs from military bases and helping to shut them down. These were middle class living wage jobs. I will agree with Reagan in that noboby has ever gotten into a war because they were too strong. There are many people today that are on welfare that could be working on the jobs that Gore was in charge of eliminating. These jobs should never have been eliminated until other jobs were created that were of the same quality and were living wage jobs. This ‘big lie’ that global warming is caused by humans is unconscienable. First of all we are now experiencing global cooling. Now many people oculd lose their jobs because of the ‘big lie.’
First I want to give you my opinion of Ronald Reagan. I will do this because I don’t want to present myself as a radical conservative. Ronald Reagan did one of the most dishonest things ever done in governement. Reagan had originally given his major tax cuts to the rich. This plan wasn’t working. Here is what Reagan did. Originally self employed people paid about 9% social security. People like farmers could pay their wives a small amount of pay which wasn’t taxable by social security. Reagan raised the self employed rate to 14%. He also took the social security exemption away from the farmer’s wives. He took that revenue and put in right into the general fund to make it look like his tax cuts. That way he could take from the poor and give to the rich. Remember George H Bush called this voodoo economics. I call it trickle up economics. I was in a franchised business then. There were 500 independent owners. Five years later with the 5% of our income going to the rich we were out of business. The entire franchise no longer exists.
Now its Al Gore’s turn. Up until this time I thought this thing Reagan pulled off was the worst. Al Gore was in charge of removing jobs from military bases and helping to shut them down. These were middle class living wage jobs. I will agree with Reagan in that noboby has ever gotten into a war because they were too strong. There are many people today that are on welfare that could be working on the jobs that Gore was in charge of eliminating. These jobs should never have been eliminated until other jobs were created that were of the same quality and were living wage jobs. This ‘big lie’ that global warming is caused by humans is unconscienable. First of all we are now experiencing global cooling. Now many people oculd lose their jobs because of the ‘big lie.’
V
Valke2
Guest
This clarifies the whole Global Warming thread.
This tells me nothing. Let’s move on.
Sure it does.
He has a beef with Al Gore.
A
a_burger
Guest
I’m sorry for presenting facts to you. Facts due tend to be irrelevant for people of your mindset. Your buddy Al Gore will fall along with his lie. It’s no wonder you don’t like facts. No we won’t move on until the truth be revealed. I forget the guys name who said the truth will set you free. Maybe you could help me with that name.
V
Valke2
Guest
I’m afraid I can’t wait around until you decide to reveal some truth. I’m moving on.
C
Calliso
Guest
So I am curious just what terms would you like us to use.
It seems to me people have a problem with the terms no matter what terms are used…
Really though who gives a you know what if people use terms like skeptic and believer and climate change and global warming and AGW and whatever else? I guess I just donlt get why such terms are such an issue with a few people.
S
Squishy
Guest
Why all the antagonism in this thread. We are currently experiencing a climate shift. As the earth has many times in the past. Its debateable how much effect humans are having on this. However, deforestation and the sheer magnitude of chemicals that we reliese into our enviroment are not good.
Its a sad state of affairs when people have to be litteraly scared into doing something to help out the enviroment. We do not have to read in the paper about the ‘global warming’ boogie man to know that releasing chemicals into the atmospheres and into our oceans is a bad thing.
Whats also worth bearing in mind that fossil fuels are finite. So the quest for renewable energy should be of the upmost importance anyway. The forests that we cut down in the name of progress are the home to many species of plant and fauna, that are unique. Many of which might not be alive in generations to come.
Their are plenty of good reasons to reduce the impact that humans have on our world. Its just a shame that no-one takes them seriously enough untill they attach the idea of ‘self preservation’ onto them.
Do i believe in global warming. Yes. Just the same as i believe in global cooling. What we are experiancing is a shift in the climate patterns that ourselves and the pervious few generations have been accustomed to. If it takes the fear of this to motivate people into doing something about the impact we make on the world then great.
Its a sad state of affairs when people have to be litteraly scared into doing something to help out the enviroment. We do not have to read in the paper about the ‘global warming’ boogie man to know that releasing chemicals into the atmospheres and into our oceans is a bad thing.
Whats also worth bearing in mind that fossil fuels are finite. So the quest for renewable energy should be of the upmost importance anyway. The forests that we cut down in the name of progress are the home to many species of plant and fauna, that are unique. Many of which might not be alive in generations to come.
Their are plenty of good reasons to reduce the impact that humans have on our world. Its just a shame that no-one takes them seriously enough untill they attach the idea of ‘self preservation’ onto them.
Do i believe in global warming. Yes. Just the same as i believe in global cooling. What we are experiancing is a shift in the climate patterns that ourselves and the pervious few generations have been accustomed to. If it takes the fear of this to motivate people into doing something about the impact we make on the world then great.
I believe this statement follows more along with what I see and hear every election cycle.So I am curious just what terms would you like us to use.
It seems to me people have a problem with the terms no matter what terms are used…
The liberal side of the political spectrum looks to the conservative and sees the Christian churches following along as the conservative side tends to follow the morality.
So the liberal side of the political world then turn around and label their various positions ‘moral issues’
Then the rhetoric gets ramped up as the election cycle proceeds, and eventually you have a religious movement.
Al Gore is the prophet.
Gaia (Earth) is the God.
Abortion is the sacrament.
Having more then one child is a sin.
Emitting CO2 is a sin.
The holocost like scenario of global warming is their end of days prophecy.
I do not see too much of the religious talk in this thread.
Probably because only one aspect of it all is being discussed and the religion does not become apparent until the whole is examined.
Name one.
But before you do, Identify this impact of which you speak.
S
Squishy
Guest
Deforestarion. The death and eventual extinction of many varying species of fauna and animals. Loss of natural protection in more hilly areas against landslides and mudslides.
The mass use of fossile fuels. The eventual depletion of these said fuels. Leaving those who have not invested heavly into alternatives without sources of power among other things. Resulting in much more deforestation. Upsetting the delicate eco balance that exists in many heavly forested areas.
V
Valke2
Guest
And lets not forget that deforestation releases more carbon into the air and contributes to further acceleration of deforestation.
I see.
So humans shouldn’t be here for deforestation?
M
mapleoak
Guest
Can you provide data to support that the logging industry results in deforestation? Where I live, logging is a MAJOR part of our industrial makeup.
S
Squishy
Guest
What? I dont follow. You asked for an impact that humans have on the planet and why we should reduce this. I gave you one.
S
Squishy
Guest
I do not think i mentioned the ‘logging industry’ or anything about industrial makeups. I stated that destroying forests, is not a very good thing for the planet. Do you disagree?
No, I asked for** the** impact.
You wrote singular, and indicate that the impact of man is a bad thing.
So what exactly are you talking about.
Unless you can be specific, I would have to simply dismiss the argument as fallacious.
After all, how can you speak of man’s impact as singularly bad without defining what precisely the impact is.
I think you need to be more precise.
S
Squishy
Guest
I do not really know what you would like from me. I was trying to say that the impact humans have on the world is very rairly a positive one. We tend to be very destructive to the eco systems that we inhabit. If you agree with this. I would think you would agree that being a little less destructive is not a bad thing.
S
sodak
Guest
Every creature in the animal kingdom has some sort of impact, usually negative. Only mankind has the intelligence to not only mitigate this, but also improve his environment.
Deforestation. A good thing if you want to farm the land. A bad thing if you want to deforest the entire globe. There are degrees here, it’s not simply bad v.s. good.
Using trees is a good thing. The latest stats I heard was 7 years from seedling to pulp. Sounds pretty renewable to me. I’ve also heard (but will have to look up the stats) that we have more forest now, then when the first explorers reached our country.
We’ve made messes, sure. We’ve also cleaned them up and greatly improved our environment. The earth was put here for us, we are to be wise shepherds in it’s use. But we can, and should, still use it.
For example, I think if we want to reduce our “carbon footprint”, then it’s absolutely unethical NOT to build nuclear power reactors. Talk about the ultimate in almost free power. To waste it is immoral, IMO. The safety and waste issues are easily solvable, it would free us from all that evil foreign oil, and do it much quicker and cheaper than any other source. The stuff is going to decay whether we use it or not, we might as well use it!
Deforestation. A good thing if you want to farm the land. A bad thing if you want to deforest the entire globe. There are degrees here, it’s not simply bad v.s. good.
Using trees is a good thing. The latest stats I heard was 7 years from seedling to pulp. Sounds pretty renewable to me. I’ve also heard (but will have to look up the stats) that we have more forest now, then when the first explorers reached our country.
We’ve made messes, sure. We’ve also cleaned them up and greatly improved our environment. The earth was put here for us, we are to be wise shepherds in it’s use. But we can, and should, still use it.
For example, I think if we want to reduce our “carbon footprint”, then it’s absolutely unethical NOT to build nuclear power reactors. Talk about the ultimate in almost free power. To waste it is immoral, IMO. The safety and waste issues are easily solvable, it would free us from all that evil foreign oil, and do it much quicker and cheaper than any other source. The stuff is going to decay whether we use it or not, we might as well use it!
- Status