# Bush Snubs Gore Film on Global Warming



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Here you go Sebastian.

WASHINGTON - Is President Bush likely to see Al Gore's documentary about global warming? "Doubt it," Bush said coolly Monday. But Bush should watch it, Gore shot back. In fact, the former Democratic vice president offered to come to the White House any time, any day to show Bush either his documentary or a slide show on global warming that he's shown more than 1,000 times around the world.

"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore said in an Associated Press interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.

Bush and Gore have had bitter disagreements about the environment and other issues. Bush defeated Gore in a disputed presidential election that was finally settled by the Supreme Court in 2000.

Gore's documentary chronicles his efforts to bring greater attention to the dangers of climate change.

"New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment," Bush said. "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."

Gore said the causes of global warming should not be ignored.

"Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus," Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. "Is it because Exxon Mobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of Exxon Mobil. Why?"

"I'm a grandfather and he's a father and this should not be a political issue," Gore said. "And he should ask the National Academy of Sciences ... whether or not human beings are contributing to global warming."

The White House said Bush already has acknowledged the impact of human behavior on global warming.

"The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was due to certain extent to human activity," said White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

"Since then he has committed tens of billions of dollars to the science and technology programs that he initiated and we are well on our way to meeting the president's goal of reducing greenhouse intensity by 18 percent by 2012," she said.

Gore's movie debuted at last winter's Sundance Film Festival and opens in U.S. theaters Wednesday.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Bush.

George W. Bush.

Dear lord. This travesty of a human being needs to be removed from the gene pool.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I mean the leader of our nation when asked if he will watch this film on Global Warming, gives the articulate reply of "Doubt It."

Is this not maddening to anyone but me? And Martin.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm talking to my best friend the other day. A total paranoid type and she's rambling about how 1984 is coming because of the phone monitering and all. I bit my tongue and held it in, and finally said, "Well, I told you not to vote for him." How do these people complain when they knew he was a nutcase?? He was already elected once and showed us how unstable he was. Yet they vote for him _again_ and proceed to complain about the state of our country.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

enngirl5 said:


> How do these people complain when they knew he was a nutcase?? He was already elected once and showed us how unstable he was. Yet they vote for him _again_ and proceed to complain about the state of our country.


Amen to that. These people baffle me as well. It just shows that he's nothing more than a microcosm of the general intelligence level in general.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

For God's sake, Bush even stopped the scientist working on global
warming for NASA from printing his entire report.

The guy is an idiot and I hope he's listening. :evil:

Oh, but golly gee, now he's gonna save our borders. Too little,
too late, you too little idiot!


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

terri* said:


> For God's sake, Bush even stopped the scientist working on global
> warming for NASA from printing his entire report.
> 
> The guy is an idiot and I hope he's listening. :evil:
> ...


Tell it like it is, sista!!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I and indeed I believe a good number of the American people now believe that George W. Bush is one of the worst Presidents this nation as ever had. And he is clearly the worst President in my lifetime.

The thing is, he is so rigid. He is a concrete thinker. He is not able to see the world in any way other than his own.

He was voted in for a myriad of reasons however. It is too easy to say, "What was everyone thinking." Most people are worried about their weekly paycheck and having a bit of fun with the family. I would never want to be a politician. If some gave me a BILLION dollars I wouldn't do it. I think it takes a degree of hubris to want the job.

It is however incomprehensible to me that he dismisses the global warming problem.

I'd gather in a month, he will turn around and try to "make up" for this faux pas in some stupid way. Make an announcement that they will use less electricity in the White House or something. Seriously.

I just don't think the guy is that bright. Bottom line.

Someone decent has got to step up to the plate in 2008. But they will have inherited numerous disasters.

Lord have mercy.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

And yet, you voted for him.

Don't get me wrong Dreamer, I love ya...but there's no excuse. He should never have been reelected. You and many millions of other Americans made a grave mistake.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

sebastian said:


> And yet, you voted for him.
> 
> Don't get me wrong Dreamer, I love ya...but there's no excuse. He should never have been reelected. You and many millions of other Americans made a grave mistake.


Oh, I don't want to fight. I sat in that voting booth for 20 minutes. I was going to check no one. And I've said many times my husband voted the libertarian candidate who received 25,000 votes, lol.

I voted for Bush for one reason, and I researched my vote and found this was a common reason, surprisingly that has occurred throughout the history of American politics....

*Excluding, deaths, assasinations and what not, during any time of war, no incumbent president has ever been voted out of office. This is a historical fact, and if I could find the data I found before I'll post it again. I literally, unconsciously, without knowing that fact, repeated a historical pattern.* I was terrified after 9/11. I was not alone. I felt, as the pattern goes, that it was dangerous to "change horses in mid-stream". I felt it would show a sign of weakness ... give a message to our enemies that we had no faith in what we had started. And I was as bamboozled as many others by the Iraqi connection to 9/11.

I must tell you. Many Americans, including myself, were changed by 9/11. My interest in politics changed. And I don't claim to know a lot about politics.

But that was the one, sincere reason I voted for Bush, and I was far from alone. We will never know what John Kerry would have done re: that, and it was foremost on my mind.

I am not a member of the Moral Majority: I do not vote a straight ticket on anything. I voted for many liberal propositions that appeared on that same ballot.

I nearly walked out of the voting booth leaving the selection for President blank. Literally, I agonized over it. But I have stated the reason I voted for Bush. No one will ever know what good or bad things Kerry would have done. He may have been the greatest President we've ever had. I doubt that. He was not the strongest candidate I've seen.

I suppose I should have left the voting booth leaving that spot blank. I almost did. And now I'm a pariah sp? for it.

At present, I am stunned by the endless lies generated by Bush. I am stunned by his lack of an ability to see into the future. I am stunned by a million things.

What can I say? Shoot me.
And yet, Seb, you have said that America should bomb Iran. You want Bush to bomb Iran now? OMG. Americans are idiots, yet we are supposed to take care of the world. Hell, I was just born here! It wasn't my fault my grandparents moved here from Germany and Ireland. Dear GOD. :shock: 
Peace,
D
Now I'm waiting for Dakota Joe to come back and beat up on me, God help me. LOL. 8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Here's the real kicker. If 9/11 hadn't occurred, how would we think of Bush? Probably again as an idiot. But I believe HE changed as well after 9/11. We were caught off guard when we shouldn't have been. And there were mistakes made by many Presidents before Bush that resulted in the mess he inherited.

I make no excuses for Bush. He IS an idiot.

But it is impossible to lump all Americans in this entire multicultural country ... we are not a homogeneous people ... and say all who voted for Bush are assholes/idiots/have caused the doom of humanity.

What surprises me also is the incompetence of our goverment in general. How could so many people screw up? And domestically as well.

Well, time for bed. And I won't defend myself, as I don't feel I need to. If I can find that data I found before I'll post it. THANK GOD I wasn't alone in my reasoning.

Sebastian, I voted out of fear. Plain and simple. And I wasn't alone in that. And I am far from a Holy Roller.

Sigh,
Nite,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

This isn't what I found before. What I found before, or perhaps saw more recently was a discussion of this on PBS of all things, but per "Ask Yahoo"... whatever I found before discussed the psychology of Americans, why they vote this way...

*"How many wartime presidents were reelected to a consecutive term?"*

"Answering your question proved a bit tricky, but using a combination of methods we managed to get to the bottom of the matter. First, we looked for presidents who sought reelection when America was at war. We compared election results from 1789 to 2000 with the dates of major wars in which the United States was involved. Then we consulted the Columbia Encyclopedia on Yahoo! Reference for specifics about war dates and how elections were affected. Finally, we cross-checked Yahoo!'s Presidency and Presidential Elections categories to round out our research. Here's what we learned:

Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, and the Civil War began in 1861. Lincoln was reelected by a large majority in 1864. The war ended in April 9, 1865, and the president was assassinated on April 14, 1865.

William McKinley led the U.S. through the Spanish-American War in 1898 and was reelected in 1900 during the Philippine-American War (1899-1902). McKinley was assassinated in 1901.

In 1941, during Franklin D. Roosevelt's third term, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and the U.S. entered World War II. The president was easily reelected to a fourth term during the war in 1944, but he died before the war ended in 1945.

Richard Nixon inherited the Vietnam War from his predecessors when he was elected in 1968. Nixon continued the war in Southeast Asia while pursuing peace talks, and he was reelected in 1972. The next year, the U.S. withdrew troops from the area.

*Thus, four out of four wartime presidents were reelected. This only counts presidents whose reelection campaigns were during wartime. The Persian Gulf War occurred in January and February 1991 under the watch of George H. W. Bush. However, he wasn't up for reelection until the following year, well after the conflict had ended. He ran but was not reelected to office.

In addition, several presidents presided over wars, but did not seek reelection. The War of 1812 began after James Madison started his second term, and he chose not to run again in 1816. James Polk declared the U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848), but declined a second term. Harry S. Truman got the country into the Korean War in 1950 but didn't run for reelection. John F. Kennedy started the U.S. involvement in Vietnam in 1961. This led to war under the administration of Lyndon Johnson, who did not run for reelection.*

Interestingly, war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower's promise to get America out of Korea helped elect him president in 1952. Woodrow Wilson was also in the anti-war camp. World War I broke out in Europe in 1914, during Wilson's first term. He won reelection in 1916 with the Democratic campaign slogan, "He kept us out of war." But sadly, Wilson couldn't uphold the policy indefinitely, and German attacks forced him to ask Congress for a declaration of war in 1917."


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm sorry, but American is THE one country you can safely stereotype with a small margin of error. You know this, I know this, the entire globe knows this and does so. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

But before I'm attacked by a pointy pole with a tattered stars 'n stripes flag, this doesn't mean you can generalise individuals.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Dreamer



> If some gave me a BILLION dollars I wouldn't do it.


Now Dreamer honey, I want you to think real hard about this one. All
you have to do is get voted in and then you could let people like, 
oh, say Cheney and the other idiots extroidinare, run the whole 
damn thing into the ground. :evil:

But you'd still have your money. 

And I just want to publicly say I do not think you are the single reason
Bush was re-elected. It was you and a couple of friends of mine. :lol:

May all the powers that be please send us someone to vote on this time.
amen.


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

Dreamer said:


> [] I was terrified after 9/11. I was not alone. I felt, as the pattern goes, that it was dangerous to "change horses in mid-stream". I felt it would show a sign of weakness ... give a message to our enemies that we had no faith in what we had started. And I was as bamboozled as many others by the Iraqi connection to 9/11.


i'm sorry to say this, dreamer...but you were terrified after 9/11 because the government made it a point to keep the general public in "fear" in order to boost support for bush. there was nothing to be afraid of. period. 9/11 was a terrible thing, but it wasn't going to happen again.

i remember when i went lived in spain in '03, we'd check the internet to see what the "terror alert" was. it never once went below orange (which was the next highest color from the top)...tell me that is not purely designed to make us afraid. otherwise...every single day, every single person was in danger from the terrorists? no way! by the way, we were always amazed and disgusted by the fact that people were actually buying into all that (the "terror alerts", the public service announcements about what to do in case of chemical or biological attack, etc). it made me sad for our country...and i was glad to be living away from the u.s. for that time in history.

and the whole thing about "changing horses in the middle of the race"...you know what? if i was riding a horse, and in the middle of the race it broke it's leg...you better believe i'd change horses. or, if the horse i was riding started running backwards, and wouldn't turn around...i'd sure as hell change horses. even if i didn't win, at least i'd finish at all.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

agentcooper said:


> and the whole thing about "changing horses in the middle of the race"...you know what? if i was riding a horse, and in the middle of the race it broke it's leg...you better believe i'd change horses. or, if the horse i was riding started running backwards, and wouldn't turn around...i'd sure as hell change horses. even if i didn't win, at least i'd finish at all.


Amen. I mean, by that logic all a president has to do is instigate a war and you'll relect him. Doesn't sound like a very good reason to me.

Dreamer, i'm not trying to pick on you but you said yourself he's one of the worst president's ever...certainly the worst in your lifetime. How bad did you think the opposition could possibly have been? Is John Kerry Satan incarnate? And if you were unsure of who to vote for because you were disillusioned by both of the main contenders, why not vote for Nader? Or hell, Libertarian sounds good. I vote for the Green party in our elections because none of the major parties appeal to me and i can at least lodge a protest vote of sorts.

I don't want to fight either but this is really something that gets under my skin.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> I'm sorry, but American is THE one country you can safely stereotype with a small margin of error. You know this, I know this, the entire globe knows this and does so. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
> 
> But before I'm attacked by a pointy pole with a tattered stars 'n stripes flag, this doesn't mean you can generalise individuals.


*EDIT: #1 --Martin, please summarize this stereotype -- in a couple of sentences or a paragraph. I'm not sure what stereotype you are referring to.*

Well, *there is a sterotype for every country -- and some aren't pretty at all*, every part of this country is divided as well -- the black vote, the women's vote, the Bible belt vote. There is a sterotype of blacks, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, *Christians -- Martin you have a gross sterotype of all Christians and those who have Faith*, there is a stereotype of every race, creed and color, etc., etc., etc. Gays are stereotyped. The mentally ill are stereotyped.

*The key thing I think you said is our elected AND appointed officials do NOT represent the American people as a whole. That you ar correct about.* Many are furious with Bush now. Many politicians are furious with Bush.

*When you say the American people are idiots, then I have no choice to assume you find me an idiot. All of you. At least I come out and say whom I voted for and why. There are many other people on this Board who won't becuase of this generalization.*

I phoned about 4 people, including my husband who reads like a maniac all manner of political tomes before voting. I studied my ballot. Many Americans (NOT ALL) just vote a straight ticket.

My husband works for the Federal Government and has his entire life -- in fraud protection mainly, and for seven years or so w/IRS fraud. He knows public servants personally. He went to uni with some of them. He wanted to teach Poli Sci at Berkeley (one of the most liberal universities in this country). He has an unfinished Ph.D. in poli-sci.

He didn't like either candidate. I was torn. I knew liberals who voted for Bush, I knew some conservatives who voted for Kerry. The stereotype that is assumed by so many doesn't fit is all I'm saying. And in the end, as far as I understand, Bush won, because of the concerns of the Moral Majority. I was stunned by that. I thought the vote would be about the war. Kerry is also a Catholic Martin.

Good God, I should have left the ballot blank. I was concerned my vote DID count. You're all saying I was manipulated by the press. Perhaps, but so is everyone -- who isn't -- I was but everyone else wasn't -- weren't we reading the same papers/magazines/OP Ed sections/TV documentaries? How can the average person spend all day studying the complexity of politics? Sadly my husband does and the house is falling to pieces in L.A. He has his own issues, serious ones, but he tries to stay educated.

He is a Jew who was raised by Jewish Communists (an old stereotype which was true and Jews still tend to be liberals for many reasons) and now he considers himself a moderate conservative, and takes a bit of every other party.

My husband says he will no longer vote for President. I'm tempted to do the same.

So I was swayed by my fears. Sue me.

I won't argue this again. I'm being honest. And I'm giving you reasons. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

*I was agreeing with you people, saying Bush is an idiot. Then Seb, you took a little stab at me. I should have ignored that. It was really unnecessary. God political discussions are worse than religous ones.*

I have voted for Democratic Candidates, and I have voted for Republicans over the years, both in State and local goverment and in presidential elections.

Ah Dear Terri, no I would take the Billion. Politicians in every country in ths world are in someone else's pocket. How can you please so many different constituents without playing games of one form or another?

I can't defend myself on this anymore. I find it a gross generalization and I don't like gross generalizations about anything.

As I said, attack me, shoot me, insult me. I did what I did at least for a specific reason. I also didn't vote for Bush the first time, I don't think I voted. I was sick, or couldn't vote that day or who knows.

I can't defend myself anymore. Google incumbent wartime presidents and other things like that, and you will see the psychology of the vote, you will see the psychology of campaigns during wartime. And pundits carry on, experts, and can't agree. How can the average stupid American take this all in then?

This is unfortunate endless sniping over "crazy liberals" and "idiot conservatives here" -- more stereotypes, generalizations. It would serve us better, both sides, to get our act together. Martin you have yet to convince Homeskooled he is an idiot for his religious beliefs. I don't agree with much he says, but I don't call him an idiot. My fundamentalist Christian cousin voted for Kerry -- so much for that stereotype.

*Cheers,
Thank you I feel like shit for being honest in the first place. Many others like myself have not come forward in the first place. Believe me, I will vote on local politics and domestic issues from now on.*

Sorry for the rant. I like all of you, which is even more unfortunate, and you've ganged up on me. This is why I don't talk about my problems that much on the Board -- I'm a "downer", I'm a "longtimer" and don't offer enough "happy stuff", etc.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Well guys, I hope you're happy. :?

Done gone and got Dreamer all in a tizzy.

Dreamer, please settle yourself and spit that hairball
out. You're choking on the thing, you poor dear.

I truly believe in my heart that all these people think
the world of you. I do. I know they weren't out to
have a personal attack on you.

Hell, Martin got so foamy at the mouth the other day 
he posted he forgot he was even talking to me and was
just "on one". He's awful. We all know that. ( But I think
he has recently had some kind of spiritual vision and
may come back from the dark side.)

You are right about political and religious debates. I can't 
be involved in either one because I will get my a$$ kicked
and my feelings hurt. I can, on the other hand, say "stop
and think about the money", as a joke to be a bit involved
in the conversation.



> So I was swayed by my fears. Sue me.


Ummm...we're gonna need your full name and address to do this. :wink:

Please don't get all upset and stay away. I just hate that when that
happens. 

Come on Cobbie, there's another sandbox we can go play in
for a while.


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

i didn't mean to come off as attacking you as a person, dreamer. i think that if you read my post again, you'll see that i wasn't attacking anyone. what i *was* saying, was that your reasons (and many other people voted for bush for the same reasons) weren't good reasons. all i'm hoping is that by reiturating that point, americans can learn from their mistakes.

again, i was not attacking you personally.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Oh yeah,



> I'm a "downer", I'm a "longtimer" and don't offer enough "happy stuff", etc.


While this is true for many of us, it is also true we have some
rather funny, spectacular moments....and you have been at the 
center of many of them.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

You're right, Dreamer. You've been very candid about who you voted for. And kudos to you for that. I knew you'd feel like people were ganging up on you and especially since i know you've been feeling less than stellar lately i wasn't going to say anything on here at all.

I just can't seem to grasp the paradox of you claiming how bad of a president he is, acknowledging all of these horrible things he's doing to your country and yet you still voted for him. I mean, if you're saying that you wish you hadn't then fine but I didn't read that in what you wrote. And in any case, most of this stuff was known about Bush before the election so i still just don't see how it adds up.

Anyway, i hope you aren't interpretting this as cheap little potshots or something. Believe me, it gives me no thrill to argue with you about this. But this is something i feel very strongly about and it wouldn't have been honest of me not to say something here.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> I just can't seem to grasp the paradox of you claiming how bad of a president he is, acknowledging all of these horrible things he's doing to your country and yet you still voted for him. I mean, if you're saying that you wish you hadn't then fine but I didn't read that in what you wrote. And in any case, most of this stuff was known about Bush before the election so i still just don't see how it adds up.


I didn't like Bush, but I voted for the reason I voted. I didn't think he was as horrible as SOME pointed him out to be. Many described Kerry in a very negative light as well.

I DON'T LIKE HIM NOW. I'm not supporting him NOW. I didn't know how awful he is. I think 9/11 was an opportunity he seized upon, and it was wrong. If I knew now what I knew then and saw ALL the catastrophes of the past few years ... well hindsight is 20/20 ... I WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR HIM. I was greatly swayed by 9/11. DURING THAT ELECTION. I was afraid of what a change would mean. Kerry -- what would he have done? We don't know!

No, I chaged my MIND! But I'm not saying "I made a grave mistake" ... I also said 9/11 changed ME, my immediate reactions at that time. I did what I felt I needed to do. That's all.

One can't change one's mind? Who said I'm still supporting him? I said also I didn't vote for him the first time.

OK, I'm done.

Thank you for some of the other comments.
I simply don't like gross generalizations. I am not supporting Bush. Today I would NOT vote for him. I was so scared shitless at the time OF THE VOTE. I voted with emotion.

Again shoot me.
Sebastian I did not say that!


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> Again shoot me.
> Sebastian I did not say that!


Well, i didn't say you did. I didn't know that you had changed your mind. In any case, i still think the reasons are dubious. Sorry. I even posted something on here before the election to try to convince American voters who were undecided as to why they shouldn't vote for Bush. But whatever. What's done is done. To quote HAL, "This conversation can serve no purpose anymore."

I'm just glad i got to have the last word.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

No you didn't.
8)

Instead of alienating previous Bush voters who have seen the demise
of his presidency and are sickened by it, I think we should reach out
and yank them to the other side while they're in this weakened state. Not
really, but many...many, of my friends voted for Bush and are now 
sending me anti-Bush emails. But I would never consider myself arrogant
enough to harangue these people I care about. You know what I mean?

This next election I will do as I've always done and vote the person not
the party. Like Dreamer, there have been several times over my voting
years when I have done primal screaming in the voting booth because
there was no clear choice, IMHO.

What the world needs now is love, sweet love.

Oh, and shut up Martin.

Love to all,
terri

so many edits...so little time. :?


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

terri* said:


> No you didn't.
> 8)


 :evil: :evil: :evil:

s.*


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Dreamer is the only one stepping forward to say who she voted for and so I guess this is why she's bearing the grunt of all of this.

I've always said that I think the reason many Americans voted Bush back in was out of fear. Bush is a fighter. We feel that he will protect us. Everyone on this board should know how irrational fear can make someone. Kerry was a sh*tty candidate so we didn't have much to choose from. It amazes me that of all the great people in America, these are our two choices for president.

Great point about the terrorist alerts agentcoop. I remember this best friend telling me at one point that "We have an orange terror alert! That's the highest it's ever been!" I was like, "Uh, yeah, because the system has only been in place for a month. Of course it's as high as it's ever been."

Dreamer, I'm just glad you actually put thought into your vote. I get angry at the people that voted for Bush too, but most of them kind of blindly voted. Hell, I blindly voted sort of. I don't know much about politics, but I know about crazy people and that's why I voted against Bush.

Martin, I don't get how Americans are so easy to stereotype. We are so freaking diverse that I don't know how anyone could stereotype us. I like America. I don't have a flag stuck on my car and am not at all the typical "patriotic" citizen, but I feel safe here. I know I'll always have a roof over my head and food on the table. I know I can fight for my rights. I think everyone on here (no matter which country you're from) should be proud that they live in a place where we can sit in our nice comfortable homes, at our expensive computers and debate about these topics. Rather than living on the streets somewhere plagued with diseases just trying to keep our families alive for one more day.


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

i voted for kerry, enngirl.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

> We are so freaking diverse that I don't know how anyone could stereotype us. I like America. I don't have a flag stuck on my car and am not at all the typical "patriotic" citizen, but I feel safe here. I know I'll always have a roof over my head and food on the table. I know I can fight for my rights. I think everyone on here (no matter which country you're from) should be proud that they live in a place where we can sit in our nice comfortable homes, at our expensive computers and debate about these topics. Rather than living on the streets somewhere plagued with diseases just trying to keep our families alive for one more day.


Exactamundo! 

Sebastian! How dare you take my *. Give it back. :evil:


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I meant to say she's the only one saying she voted for Bush and giving her reasons for it. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Wow. Wonderful debate. I dont think, though, that everyone should pick on Dreamer. We all know that there are more people on this website who voted for Bush, but they wont pipe up for fear of reprisal from those angry about Iraq or the environment ( and dare I say it, justly!). And just a note. Martin said that we are the only country you can stereotype "safely". He's quite correct. Besides the Irish, we are the only country with a self-deprecating sense of conscience or humor. We bend over backwards to chastise ourselves for our failings. Of course its safe to stereotype us. But dont do that to the Europeans or Arabs. Then stereotyping isnt quite as "safe".

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*To foolishly jump into the fray again, what the Hell, I STILL want to hear Martin your stereotype of Americans. Please state it for me. I can imagine any number of statements, but I'm curious what you have to say.*

Also, again, I hate Bush, many things he's done, but I also have a rather embarassing review of Gore's Canne's debut which turns out to be something of a public service announcement, perhaps for his running again.

What is unfortunate is that I feel we need to deal with Global Warmning. Of course! Al Gore has been working on this for 20years. Then Bush has got his goals and priorities all over the place. He blurts things out without even thinking. I can't look at him when he makes Presidential speeches on TV -- it's too embarrassing. Seriously. I can' listen to him as he is inarticulate. He aint' Reagan and he ain't Clinton that's for sure in terms of presentation. OMG. :shock:

I really don't dare post the review, and some other comments I found. And that is unfortunate, as we can't have a discussion. We can't. I'll get bitten in the ass again, lol.

I feel better though. And to again, to lump why Americans chose between one of two candidates into one lump -- we are all stupid -- is way too easy. *Imagine students of history reading this in a textbook some 20 years from now......

"In 2004, the American public voted in incumbent George W. Bush. All who cast that vote were stupid and ruined the world. Full stop." That's very enlightening.* :roll: The exam on that would be easy though.

That isn't that illuminating re: the complexity of the voting process. That's what I mean by gross generalization. And so is "I told ya' so!" We have to work with what we've got now.

And again. Though Gore has excellent intentions, his film ends up turning out like a reelection spot, a public relations opportunity -- I look forward to seeing it, but understand I will be bored to tears. And George, the inarticulate dimwit that he is, instead of saying nothing, blurts out some idiotic statement which again will have to be rectified by a staff writer in a week or so.

We desperately need to do something about Global warming. Please God, let us have TWO good candidates to choose from next election. Meantime, we wait for China and India to continue developing. Their polution of the environment represents their improvement of quality of life ironically. The industrial revolution which started all of this improved quality of life for many, many people, not just in the US, but all over the world.

Who knew then what mess had been started.

As I've said, nothing is simple, and hindsight is 20/20. Sebastian, this is why I said the arguement that Bush is now elected is old. I can't take back my vote and neither can anyone else who voted. That is what I didn't need to hear.

*Let's stop arguing about that mistake and move on. I finally realized what I wanted to say.

In the spirit of discussion, not mudslinging. And let's work to find the best candidates possible for 2008.*

And right now, I am afraid to post the analysis of Gore's film, lol.

I miss university courses where we were able to disuss things like this, in depth, and not simply snipe at each other.

AAAEEEEEEIIIIIII.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Last comment I read today in the paper. This is the problem with politics -- disagreements within a party, (which is fine ... different POVs are good,) and Congress can overturn many idiotic things Bush does or proposes to do. Or at least tone things down. They've done so with immigration policies here which are yet another problem.

However I was angry to read that instead of praising Gore (a Democrat), Hillary Clinton (Democrat and going for the 2008 election) sniped at him as well. I think she sees a motivation for him to run on an environmental platform which is a threat to her. She sees his popularity now as a threat.

This is what is dangerous about stereotyping even the parties, Liberal vs. Conservative. There is dissention sp? within parties, within all lobbying groups.

*I give up. I swear to not comment on politics anymore. It is too divisive here, and I apologize for getting very crabby about things.*

Here's to a better future, without Bush (he won't run again and won't get elected -- too many people hate him now as I do), and with some decent candidate that can handle both foreign and domestic affairs while trying to please a very diverse population who have many different priorities, and trying to juggle many countries with different agendas and different levels of economic development, different values, different goals.

Not an easy task. Why I said, I wouldn't take the job if someone offered me a billion dollars. I could not and would not want to be a politician in any party, in any country. Especially w/DP. :?

*Swear I'm done, save Martin please write about the American stereotype! I won't respond. I just want to know what it is, in your own words.**

OK, done. Someone remind me. If I get carried away again, just say, "Dreamer, you said you'd stay out of this stuff."

I go a little daft now and then. Apologies.*


----------



## walkingdead (Jan 28, 2006)

Not to take up for Bush, but I wouldn't want to see a documentary about an unproven bunch of hysterical hogwash either. Top scientists have noted that instead of global warming we are about to go into another iceage, instead. Maybe Gore should spend his off time by delving into more suitable topics, like maybe giving some of that "evil" money his family got by raising "evil" tobacco to charities that can help those poor souls afflicted with its dangers. He could save many more lives that way. But no he would rather just tax the poor sufferers to death and live his millionaire lifestyle with his families ill gotten gains. Wow, I can feel the jabs hitting me already. ow! oh! Please stop it!! I give up!!!


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)




----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

walkingdead said:


> Not to take up for Bush, but I wouldn't want to see a documentary about an unproven bunch of hysterical hogwash either. Top scientists have noted that instead of global warming we are about to go into another iceage, instead. Maybe Gore should spend his off time by delving into more suitable topics, like maybe giving some of that "evil" money his family got by raising "evil" tobacco to charities that can help those poor souls afflicted with its dangers. He could save many more lives that way. But no he would rather just tax the poor sufferers to death and live his millionaire lifestyle with his families ill gotten gains. Wow, I can feel the jabs hitting me already. ow! oh! Please stop it!! I give up!!!


Oh my. Last thing I say. SWEAR it, lol. I can't come back to look at this topic.

I am fully convinced that we have "Global Dimming" ... two things are happening. A warming of the environment by greenhouse gases AND a blocking of the sun's rays by particulate matter in the upper atmostphere. I am convinced this is something we have done. There was an excellent PBS special on this, with scientists who have no agenda, they're just doing their work. We have a real problem. I AM convinced.

The sad thing is apparently (and no I haven't seen his documentary, haven't been to Cannes this year 8) ) is that it is a lot about him, and there are errors in what are in the film. *This doesn't mean we don't have a huge problem, and that I'm glad he's been concerned with it for 2 decades, however, when something like a documentary comes out, you don't want it to have errors, and apprently it does, and as noted it seems to be a "political commercial" of sorts for Gore, who apparently apologizes for his family's tobacco sp! empire.*

The other thing that is noted, is Gore has been embraced by the Hollywood elite who are some of the greatest conspicuous consumers in the world. Owners of Humvees, private jets, gigantic inefficient homes, etc. They don't practice what they preach -- that is what makes me angry. And they are liberals and bitch endlessly about thing such as the environment. They don't practice what they preach, but carry on with their energy- inefficient lifestyles. And now they have taken Gore into their arms. I find the Hollywood elite so hypocritical it is astounding (save some really decent folk).

*But I have NO doubt we have to clean up our environmental act. But how do we do this? He doesn't seem to offer any clear solutions either.

That is disappointing. To take the time and money to make a documentary that is really about a C+ is very disappointing. I read a more charitable review in another paper, but it said about the same thing.*

But I am indeed convinced that the Industrial Revolution started something that has CHANGED the environment significantly. Scientists argue over the real figures/outcome -- real pessimists vs. less gloom and doom, but bottom line, we have a BIG problem.

*I recall what was stunning on this PBS documentary was, on 9/11, scientists were able to carry out an amazing test. I don't understand all of it, but all planes in the US were grounded for I believe 3 or 4 days. During that short time, the absense of jet contrails and emmisions, significantly reversed certain changes in the atmosphere. It was too much of a coincidence and was astonishing.

A sad opportunity to carry out such an experiment, but it said a lot about the millions of flights across this country and all over the world that in themselves are causing enviornmental problems.*

The problem, we have created this world where to reverse some of what has happened we would have to literally stop activities in the world completely. Heat, ground transportation, power, air travel -- all of the positive things we have as a result of industry including the homes/apartments we live in, many means of income to support for ourselves/families. The very factories that give unskilled labor a step up to a better life. And immigrants here take advantage of that -- that's why they come here.

The problem is politicians have so many agendas they are not articulating the problems properly OR the solutions. And they can't please everyone at the same time.

And miss starling I again agree whole-heartedly:



> I've never heard an American self-depreciate in my life...


lol! Touche!



Homeskooled said:


> we are the only country with a self-deprecating sense of conscience or humor. We bend over backwards to chastise ourselves for our failings.


I agree with Miss Starling. I don't think that is true at all Home. Sorry.

OK I'm DONE. But I had to refute walking's comments. Gore's film's THEME is critical, very important, and I believe it to be true, but the delivery is weak. But at least it is a contribution. There IS Global Warming... but he didn't give us a clue of what he might do as President (if he goes for reelection) about it. He had a great opportunity on that one and seems to have missed the mark.

D


----------



## walkingdead (Jan 28, 2006)

[quote name="Dreamer"]

*I recall what was stunning on this PBS documentary was, on 9/11, scientists were able to carry out an amazing test. I don't understand all of it, but all planes in the US were grounded for I believe 3 or 4 days. During that short time, the absense of jet contrails and emmisions, significantly reversed certain changes in the atmosphere. It was too much of a coincidence and was astonishing.

A sad opportunity to carry out such an experiment, but it said a lot about the millions of flights across this country and all over the world that in themselves are causing enviornmental problems.*

Dreamer I like you but I have to point out that during the days jets sere grounded per the PBS special you refered to, the temperature GOT WARMER! The jet trails had been shading out the sun and making the temperature cooler and during the days that they were gone due to the grounding of our jets the temperature went UP. This means our jets have an opposite effect on warming in that they actually make us COOLER, if you are to believe this "3 day" study.
Sorry but I had to point that one out.
And I do not like chimp-faced Bush either but I really do not care about global warming at all, I just like to make waves. Actually DP keeps me from caring about most everything.LOL-but seriously


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

walkingdead said:


> Dreamer I like you but I have to point out that during the days jets sere grounded per the PBS special you refered to, the temperature GOT WARMER! The jet trails had been shading out the sun and making the temperature cooler and during the days that they were gone due to the grounding of our jets the temperature went UP. This means our jets have an opposite effect on warming in that they actually make us COOLER, if you are to believe this "3 day" study.
> Sorry but I had to point that one out.
> And I do not like chimp-faced Bush either but I really do not care about global warming at all, I just like to make waves. Actually DP keeps me from caring about most everything.LOL-but seriously


Oh crap I have to respond to this:

These discussions help keep me distracted from my DP/DR actually. In the past when I was much worse I wouldn't be able to compose a decent sentence on it, so here's proof that concerns outward have helped. Anyway, you're missing the point of "Dimming of the Sun"

*"New evidence that air pollution has masked the full impact of global warming suggest the world may soon face a heightened climate crisis."*

True there is no consensus specifically on contrails, but it is clear that two things are happening. Most important is planes cause exhaust pollution from fuel burning. Contrails may or may not be a big problem later. I just used that as an interesting experiment that has never occurred -- i.e. the 9/11 grounding of all aircraft in the US.

1. We are generating a greenhouse effect w/CO2
2. Particulate matter from pollution is actually keeping the sun's rays dimmer -- and hence we aren't getting the same amount of sun at the same time of year in the same areas of the world. Ocean patterns are changing, air streams, etc. Hell, I'm not a meteorologist, but anyway....

This has resulted in droughts, and odd weather patterns worldwide. This is pretty convincing if you look into it in more detail.

*So there is a doubly whammy. We cause warming, but the sun cannot reach the earth and is making things cooler. Hence our measurements of global warming have been skewed.... in a POSITIVE way. In other words, pollution is causing both warming and cooling. We MIGHT be in worse trouble than we thought as the sun's heat isn't reaching us so we must add that missing figure to the equation. The "dimming of the sun."

Scientists are only beginning to understand THAT.*

Death by "Fire or Ice?" Take your pick. And no, it isn't going to happen tomorrow. But we need to be concerned about future generations -- their quality of life, if not survival. Worldwide.

Changes in air and ocean currents alone illustrate this. Core samples in the Arctic/Antarctic are obvious in illustrating rapid changes in ice caps again during the Industrial Revolution. (I'm making this very simple and can't speak as an expert obviously)

We don't understand everything, including contrails. Contrails would have a SUN DIMMING result, hence again making the global warming to appear LESS. Contrails (like clouds) keep out the sun, reflect it back into space, so yes there could be minor cooling. But add that to the dimming of the sun from particulate matter ... well the eqation is off. It SEEMS things aren't so bad, but they are actually worse, and the solution is more difficult to find.

Regardless, we have known for years and years that we aren't taking care of the earth very well. And it isn't easy to reverse damage. There are toxic waste dumps for example, garbage problems, etc.,etc., etc.

*For a full understanding of Global Dimming which is WORSE than Global warming see:*

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
*Dimming the Sun - NOVA on PBS*

The contrail debate is discussed. But that was one other experiment that added information to the puzzle of what is happening in the atmosphere.

OKAY. Done. I hope. :? :? :?

A peaceful Memorial Day to the Yanks. Throw a bratwurst on the barby for me. I'll be out in a mo with a Margarita 8)


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

walkingdead said:


> Dreamer I like you but I have to point out that during the days jets sere grounded per the PBS special you refered to, the temperature GOT WARMER! The jet trails had been shading out the sun and making the temperature cooler and during the days that they were gone due to the grounding of our jets the temperature went UP. This means our jets have an opposite effect on warming in that they actually make us COOLER, if you are to believe this "3 day" study.
> Sorry but I had to point that one out.
> And I do not like chimp-faced Bush either but I really do not care about global warming at all, I just like to make waves. Actually DP keeps me from caring about most everything.LOL-but seriously


It's ignorance like this that keeps our planet hurtling toward destruction.

Thanks for responding Dreamer because i didn't even see these comments. Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming caused by man-made burning of fossil fuels, despite the cornucopia of evidence supporting it, needs to have their head examined. You might as well be on here arguing that the world is flat.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

walkingdead said:


> Not to take up for Bush, but I wouldn't want to see a documentary about an unproven bunch of hysterical hogwash either. Top scientists have noted that instead of global warming we are about to go into another iceage, instead.


Do you know how long an ice age takes to come to fruition?


----------



## walkingdead (Jan 28, 2006)

I knew I would get the believers flamed up. Oh, and I should get my head examined. I think most of us on this forum want to get our head examined but cannot find a doctor that knows anything about DP to do it, am I right? Any more insults to someone who doesn't agree with your point of view or do you actually have valid points to make with undisputable scientific evidence to support those views? Or do you take the route of the religious group and just have "faith". Now those are the ones who heads should be examined, but that is not "politically correct" is it?


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

walkingdead said:


> Or do you take the route of the religious group and just have "faith". Now those are the ones who heads should be examined, but that is not "politically correct" is it?


I really don't understand how you seem to think that forming a theory based on a mountain load of empirical evidence can be described as taking it on faith. I mean, this was something i can remember debating 5 years ago and even then the skeptics' case was shaky. With all the new debunking going on, i really don't know what you could possibly be basing your arguments on.



walkingdead said:


> Any more insults to someone who doesn't agree with your point of view or do you actually have valid points to make with undisputable scientific evidence to support those views?


Nothing is "undisbutable" in life. There are only theories. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. What scientists do is interpret the evidence, painstakingly gathered and allow it to coalesce into a scientifically testable theory, by which other scientists try to disprove it. Well, the evidence of man-made influences causing global warming is extraordinarily hard to ignore. And whatever Exxon-sponsered study you seem to be basing your skepticism on, i can assure you, if you were to present it, would be torn to pieces.

The onus is hardly on me to provide evidence that global warming exists. I have neither the time or patience to coddle someone who obviously is so tuned out from reality that they couldn't even correctly interpret the data unambiguously stated in that PBS documentary. But if you really want to get into this, present some evidence supporting your skepticism and i'd be more than happy to engage in this debate once again.

s.


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

Homeskooled said:


> Wow. Wonderful debate. I dont think, though, that everyone should pick on Dreamer.


i wasn't picking on dreamer. i was stating my beliefs....i don't know if you were talking to me or not but i wanted to make sure you knew that.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Homeskooled said:


> And just a note. Martin said that we are the only country you can stereotype "safely". He's quite correct. Besides the Irish, we are the only country with a self-deprecating sense of conscience or humor. We bend over backwards to chastise ourselves for our failings. Of course its safe to stereotype us. But dont do that to the Europeans or Arabs. Then stereotyping isnt quite as "safe".
> 
> Peace
> Homeskooled


I would also add England to that short list. I find a lot of English comedy very self-deprecating. The Monty Python group (and i hate to be cliche by bringing them up) incessantly poke fun at themselves as a culture. I like to think Canadians do this too...there are certainly a lot of us who are self-deprecating in regards to our own person, but i don't think we're secure enough in our own cultural independence to be able to start poking fun at ourselves as a nation quite yet. Perhaps once we've conquered Hans Island and the loathsome Danish empire our confidence will soar and our humour will in turn, become more self-deprecating. Or maybe at least when Edmonton wins the Stanley Cup.

Actually, i think that's probably the problem with a lot of nations who are ostensibly so proud. They're just not comfortable in their own collective skins. It's like a macrocosm of individuals with low self-esteem.

s.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

agentcooper said:


> Homeskooled said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Wonderful debate. I dont think, though, that everyone should pick on Dreamer.
> ...


No worries agentcooper. I was overly sensitive. And I don't think that was directed at you. And again, I am only expressing my views as well. S'OK. 8)

I do need a break though. June is coming up and I will force myself not to post.

I did want to make one last statement about generalizations though then I will shut up God Help me, lol.

One can research this... but again, this shows that one party or another does not have one agenda.

When Bush called for a vote in Congress on the Iraq war, both Senator John Kerry, and Junior Sentaor Hilary Clinton voted in favor of invading Iraq.

My greater understanding of this was:

1. We wanted Hussein out. We wanted this for years, and a number of Presidents including Clinton tried to off him one way or another -- without really considering the consequences of post-Saddam Iraq. Like the troubles post-Soviet Russia is suffering from now.

2. He was endlessly threatening Saudi Arabia, an ally at the time. He was planning an invasion of Saudia Arabia for years.

3. There was a collective belief, way before Bush that if Saddam were ousted we would have LESS presense in the Middle East as we were always present ready to defend the Saudis.

4. We and the UN also DID believe, the UN!, the Saddam had WMD and he was indeed always trying to get them at the expense of the country. That country had wealth and it never trickled down to the people.

5. The idiocy that followed was that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. This was supported by many, Democrats and Republicans, were were misinformed or didn't fight hard enough to oppose it. Many went with the plan with the HORRIBLE mistaken belief that this would be an easy task. No post war planning was the horror that Americans have seen subsequently.

*A great book that is very difficult to read on the subject is The Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq by George Packer (2005). So many players involved including the interests of other countries.*

Again, I am not defending Bush. He has ignored his closest advisors and made bad mistakes. But we do have the House and the Senate to overturn his power, and we didn't seem to have strong enough leaders to do this. I don't understand this.

And again, I wanted to say, Kerry (Democrat) is Catholic. Jimmy Carter (Democrat) is an extremely religous man ... Baptist? forgot.. in HIS book on morality ... he spoke at length of a conflict of interest within his mind and heart about separating Church and State.

*Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis* by Jimmy Carter (Democrat). A very personal book really. I admire him as an "elderstatesman" very much. Often former Presidents are better in contributing to society as they aren't burdened with trying to please everyone, and speak from the heart.

OK, I do need a break, I'm on here checking on NODID and NAMI stuff.

But I'm not hurt now.
And please understand that the U.S. is really an international country. We are packed with immigrants from countries around the world. Western and developing countries. Hispanics, Asians.

OK, enuf. 
Just those 2 cents, and only from my miserable knowledge of politics. I HIGHLY recommend that book, though it is really geared towards someone with a Ph.D. in poli-sci. I keep forgetting names, particularly the Muslim ones.

Best,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Well we do poke fun at ourselves. Saturday Night Live is an example. Many cartoons in journals are rather merciless in their portrayal of politicians. Some go way overboard, but that is Freedom of Speech, such as Howard Stern.

Oh, the Simpsons! We do criticize ourselves in entertainment media.

Some get extremely defensive and insulted. Others take it as it is, again Freedom of Speech.

And for instance we have folks such as Michael Moore who was able to speak up about the Bush administration.

But I think there is self-deprecating humor in many Western countries. Yeah, England certainly. I love seeing the fights in Parliment (is that the place) where people are beating up on each other and carrying on... that is rather amusing, and made quite public.

OK, done.
D


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> To foolishly jump into the fray again, what the Hell, I STILL want to hear Martin your stereotype of Americans


Not today. Not today.

Besides, you've already done it for me. Congratulations.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> > To foolishly jump into the fray again, what the Hell, I STILL want to hear Martin your stereotype of Americans
> 
> 
> Not today. Not today.
> ...


We talk too much? 8)

I really wish you would post it.
My guess is we aren't secular enough? Either party. Too much religious influence? Remember me? The agnostic? 8)

I really want to hear it from you when you're feeling better. Meantime, very sorry about your grandmum.
And starting June 1, I have to have a break myself.

Best,
D


----------



## walkingdead (Jan 28, 2006)

Evidence
The top meteorological scientists in the world have stated, quote, "the information presented supporting the theory of global warming is inconclusive at best and totally false at worst." (CNN June 1st 2006)
Anyway it is hard to debate with an insulting idiot whose only means of attack is based on emotion and lets scientific evidence fly out the door in the name of mass hysteria. I might as well be debating Jeremy on his theory that there is no place for medicine in modern society. Well I have got better things to do like maybe watch "Fast Food Nation" or "Farenheit 911". Uh.. on second thought maybe I'll watch something more cultural like a rerun of "Lost" or "Desperate Housewives". Anyway I'm outta here. 8)
I WAS MISTAKEN ON ONE WORD AND HAVE EDITED THIS POST TO REFLECT IT(INCONCLUSIVE) THANKS ALL.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

You're hilarious.

This is your evidence? Does the "top meterological scientist" have a name or are we all supposed to know who this is? Also, I tried typing in part of your obviously invented quote into google (as you provided no link whatsoever...just a vague reference to CNN in a pathetic effort to give some validity to your alleged quote) and could find no matches.

So...are you going to argue the science of it...or are you going to hide behind these so-called experts who claim that it's all hogwash? Do you even understand what global warming is?

I don't know. People like you are so annoying because you lack even the basic backbone of an argument so i can't even take remote pleasure in quashing it. You're just one of the nameless, faceless morons that populate our world and unfortunately are given the same voting rights as people who actually know what they're talking about. Seriously, me debating you about this would be like Plato trying to explain a "just society" to a lamp shade. So there's no point.

To everyone else: If anyone has any actual arguments to make as to why they think global warming isn't caused, at least in part, by humans...then please make the argument. I have no qualms with debating this if someone actually wants to.

I know that there was a lot of skepticism regarding this phenomenon even as recent as last year when it was discovered that the skeptics' argument about the atmosphere not warming was thoroughly repudiated by the fact that they were relying on faulty data gathered from weather balloons and satellites. But i haven't heard many mainstream scientists claiming that the phenomenon doesn't exist recently.

I'll get into this more tomorrow. I have to go home now.

s.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Here, I think one can confidently say, is a leading scientist and his
educated opinion of what is going on...and what the Bush administration
does not want the masses to be aware of. Long read....but one of the 
most important things to come out about the truth on global warming
in a long time.

*************************

CBS) As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asked if he believes the administration is censoring what he can say to the public, Hansen says: "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it."

What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea.

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen.

Restrictions like this e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "? there is a new review process ? ," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued.

Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nation?s leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.

"I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone.

And Cicerone, who?s an atmospheric chemist, said the same thing every leading scientist told 60 Minutes.

"Climate change is really happening," says Cicerone.

Asked what is causing the changes, Cicernone says it's greenhouse gases: "Carbon dioxide and methane, and chlorofluorocarbons and a couple of others, which are all ? the increases in their concentrations in the air are due to human activities. It's that simple."

But if it is that simple, why do some climate science reports look like they have been heavily edited at the White House? With science labeled "not sufficiently reliable." It?s a tone of scientific uncertainty the president set in his first months in office after he pulled out of a global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future," President Bush said in 2001, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House. "We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it."

Annoyed by the ambiguity, Hansen went public a year and a half ago, saying this about the Bush administration in a talk at the University of Iowa: "I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

Since then, NASA has been keeping an eye on Hansen. NASA let Pelley sit down with him but only with a NASA representative taping the interview. Other interviews have been denied.

"I object to the fact that I?m not able to freely communicate via the media," says Hansen. "National Public Radio wanted to interview me and they were told they would need to interview someone at NASA headquarters and the comment was made that they didn?t want Jim Hansen going on the most liberal media in America. So I don?t think that kind of decision should be made on that kind of basis. I think we should be able to communicate the science."

Politically, Hansen calls himself an independent and he?s had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way.

"Should we be simply doing our science and reporting it rigorously, or to what degree the administration in power has the right to assume that you should be a spokesman for the administration?" asks Hansen. "I've tried to be a straight scientist doing the science and reporting it as best I can."

Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public. It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.

"The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say there is so much to study way upstream here that we can?t even being to discuss impacts and response strategies," says Piltz. "There?s too much uncertainty. It's not the climate scientists that are saying that, its lawyers and politicians."

Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."

Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."

Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes ?may be undergoing change.? ?Uncertainty? becomes ?significant remaining uncertainty.? One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.

"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout."

In a report, Piltz says Cooney added this line ?? the uncertainties remain so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision making. ?? References to human health are marked out. 60 Minutes obtained the drafts from the Government Accountability Project. This edit made it into the final report: the phrase ?earth may be? undergoing change made it into the report to Congress. Piltz says there wasn?t room at the White House for those who disagreed, so he resigned.

"Even to raise issues internally is immediately career limiting," says Piltz. "That?s why you will find not too many people in the federal agencies who will speak freely about all the things they know, unless they?re retired or unless they?re ready to resign."

Jim Hansen isn't retiring or resigning because he believes earth is nearing a point of no return. He urged 60 Minutes to look north to the arctic, where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the world. When 60 Minutes visited Greenland this past August, we saw for ourselves the accelerating melt of the largest ice sheet in the north.

"Here in Greenland about 15 years ago the ice sheet extended to right about where I'm standing now, but today, its back there, between those two hills in the shaded area. Glaciologists call this a melt stream but, these days, its a more like a melt river," Pelley said, standing at the edge of Greenland's ice sheet.

The Bush administration doesn?t deny global warming or that man plays a role. The administration is spending billions of dollars on climate research. Hansen gives the White House credit for research but says what?s urgent now is action.

"We have to, in the next 10 years, get off this exponential curve and begin to decrease the rate of growth of CO2 emissions," Hansen explains. "And then flatten it out. And before we get to the middle of the century, we?ve got to be on a declining curve.

"If that doesn't happen in 10 years, then I don?t think we can keep global warming under one degree Celsius and that means we?re going to, that there?s a great danger of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You can?t tie a rope around the ice sheet. You can?t build a wall around the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."

But that's not a situation you'll find in one federal report submitted for review. Government scientists wanted to tell you about the ice sheets, but before a draft of the report left the White House, the paragraph on glacial melt and flooding was crossed out and this was added: "straying from research strategy into speculative findings and musings here."

Hansen says his words were edited once during a presentation when a top official scolded him for using the word danger.

"I think we know a lot more about the tipping points," says Hansen. "I think we know about the dangers of even a moderate degree of additional global warming about the potential effects in the arctic about the potential effects on the ice sheets."

"You just used that word again that you?re not supposed to use ? danger," Pelley remarks.

"Yeah. It?s a danger," Hansen says.

For months, 60 Minutes had been trying to talk with the president?s science advisor. 60 Minutes was finally told he would never be available. Phil Cooney, the editor at the Council on Environmental Quality didn?t return 60 Minutes' calls. In June, he left the White House and went to work for Exxon Mobil.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

> Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nation?s leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.
> 
> "I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone.
> 
> ...


In case someone doesn't want to read the entire report and doesn't 
want to hear about the current administrations real thoughts on the matter.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Sebastian,



> To everyone else: If anyone has any actual arguments to make as to why they think global warming isn't caused, at least in part, by humans...then please make the argument. I have no qualms with debating this if someone actually wants to.


I believe this quote to be definitive support...



> Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?
> 
> "There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."
> 
> Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

I finally have to weigh in on this....I do beleive in global warming. I dont think the energy lobbyists like the press about it, and they're the ones giving money to the politicians and their parties for re-election. I'm not a liberal, nor do I consider myself a conservative. I'm probably just an intelligent independent. Giving what I know about climatology, I beleive that global warming (1) is inevitable - it happens naturally (2) we are greatly speeding up the process, and (3) the inevitable conclusion of global warming is an Ice Age. We've just taken the inevitable Ice Age which was going to swing our way between 500-1000 years from now, and made it _possible_ (I wont say probable - I dont think anyone knows just how fast or slow this can really occur) within the next 20 -30 years. Thats not my estimate - its a scenario dreamed up by the Pentagon and the State Department last year in a contingency plan for this possibility. Do I think Gore is using his film for political leverage? Yes. Does the film probably give worst case scenarios (such as the 20-30 year estimate)? Yes. Does the obvious ulterior motives and agendas of the filmmaker make the message any less true? Certainly not. Humans have been massively irresponsible since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and its time we made concrete steps to remedy our mistakes. Now.

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- I still think they should renegotiate the whole Kyoto treaty so that we can get all three of the largest polluters - the US, India, and China, on board at once.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> > To foolishly jump into the fray again, what the Hell, I STILL want to hear Martin your stereotype of Americans
> 
> 
> Not today. Not today.
> ...


Dear Martin,
I know you're in a very bad mood and miserable re: your grandmother's death. Again I offer condolences re: your grandmum. But I really can't guess your response. It is Anti-American I know, but I don't understand why you hesitate to simply put it into words. I just want to know.

If it is "war for oil" -- no it isn't that simple. Every country in the world depends on fossil fuels and we're in trouble, hence this debate here about global warming which I believe in -- firmly. It's interesting that suddenly there may be a boom in ethanol related industries as a result.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Middle Eastern countries who export oil ... what will be their new export in the future. They must join as well -- but how? We must help them find answers as well. We need diplomatic relations with them. Some of our allies in the Middle East understand this. Saddam was a threat to other countries in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, like Quatar and certain other Middle Eastern countries are allies due to historical events going back many centuries. America does not depend solely on Middle Eastern Oil. It is our largest percentage of the total, but your country, every country in this world needs oil -- we don't make enough, neither does your country. The U.S. sells oil from Alaska to Japan. We get oil from Venezuala, etc.

I have to state again that separation of Church/Mosque and State is (if you wish) is equally bad (if not worse) in certain other countries, especially in the Middle East. It is our goal, as is *other countries* in the West, *including the U.K. and the United Nations to have interest in a stable relationship with these countries, or as noted before, now Iran is a problem -- a threat to our very existence due to miltary threats.*

Nuclear power is a preferred "cleaner" source of energy, but we can't depend on certain countries to build reactors when they may be building bombs. We need allies in these areas, allies in countries that we don't necessarily fully agree with on many issues.

If we are trying to have more positive dipolmatic interactions with, China, India, etc. who won't/can't get involved in cleaner fuels as they are developing, if we can't convince them to move towards the "global" interaction that exists today, we are in serious trouble.

Iraq and Iran have been problems for the West (not just the U.S.) for decades. The U.N. spent 10 years or more trying to "talk" with Iraq, try to inspect Iraq, to figure out what Saddam was up to -- he lied repeatedly, canceled inspections, played games. It was known he was a danger or potential danger to all of the Middle East. We know he committed genocide. We know Iraq HAD money, yet it never got to the people ... how is that contructive in simply building more stability in the region. Other countries besides the U.S. wanted Saddam OUT, not for oil for God's sake. *Saudi Arabia and other countries found him a military threat as well. They were on our side in that sense. So Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia. He is a disgrace to that country. Did the government know one fanatic would be born in their country to ultimately destroy internatinal relations? Did they raise him to be a Fundamentalist Musim?*

If you are saying that a quest for stability and more friendly relations in the Middle East is solely based on oil that is not true, especially in light of our need to move away from fossil fuels (the argument here). We would like to straighten out our relationship w/China re: Taiwan, we wish to straighten out our relationship with North Korea -- hopeless concerns as I see them. We are with other countries seeking diplomacy -- civil interaction -- in a small, small world with limited resources and billions of people.

*I do not know why you cannot state your POV, in a clear sentence or two. Your comment above was an attack -- again I know you're in a lousy mood, I'm sorry about that. But why will you not make some statement on this? And let everyone "guess" we know what you are referring to, specifically?*

And again, after seeing a terrifying PBS special on AIDS, worldwide, I can say (if you'll forgive me), but for the Grace of God go I that I live in a Western country and not a worn torn impoverished African Country.

But that was sheer luck. I was born an American because my parents had sex and made me here, lol.

I want to let this go, but for the Love of God, I am tired of being attacked for being an American. We are a unique country, very. We are very powerful, but it took time to get where we are, and with many positive political moves and really stupid ones. Your former Imperialistic country did a lot of damage in its hey day. I'm not griping about that now.

There was a point in our history where there was a desire to give up on the Civil War. If that had happened, we would be a divided country. North and South. A completely different country would have evolved. Perhaps into two countries. That would have changed the course of history.

But Americans today don't have control over that NOW, even though some are STILL ticked off that blacks have rights, etc., etc.

*I have to stop defending myself.
But your country, as well as every country in this world, is looking after itself in one way or another, and it is difficult for all of us to acknowledge now that we need to work together to protect the world, its population. I defy you to step out and contribute to that change. And I defy you to be certain you are doing the right thing at a particular time.*

Not written in anger, but utter frustration. This implies that ALL of your views are correct, and everyone else is wrong.
Nothing can be reduced to one word soundbites or a statement like "Congratulations, Dreamer, you have delineated the stereotype." Nothing.
Peace -- as I don't know what else to offer,
and again condolences.
D


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

You're correct Dreamer, at the moment I couldn't give a rat's arse what Amercians think the rest of the world think about you.

You don't need me to tell you, you already know it. This, I imagine, is where your frustration comes from.

I am not anti-american. I am anti-neo conservative, and the filthy, creeping influence of the religious right. I despise the bombastic, psuedo-patriotism of America. I do not hate americans. In fact, I love the country. I've been there 10, or 11, I can't remember, times. Fantastic place, although I wasn't keen on California, to be honest. You can't have a beer unless you look over 45, and you can't smoke unless you walk out into the desert, but you can buy an UZI at 14 years old!

I'm tired of the Iraq/Terrorism debate. To begin with I was for invading Iraq, but now, after seeing the total balls-up the 'allies' have made of it, I have changed my mind. I understand, although in not such a gung-ho manner, why America invaded Iraq, but it is obvious even to road-kill that, once again, America has not learnt it's lessons regarding invasion, and the stability that they imagine will magically follow.

Yes, you can stereotype any country. But, and I'm sorry, again, during your rage, you missed out the bit where I said: 'But not individuals.'

I really don't think that you realise the anger, fury, that the majority of the world feels about America. I'm not just talking about war, I'm talking about the (once) insiduous 'americanisation' of the globe. It's not insiduous anymore, it's slapped across your face everyday. And that is a terrible shame. Did you know that there is a McDonalds half way up Mount Etna? They sell McVolcano Burgers.

Whatever happened to diversity of culture?


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

walkingdead said:


> I WAS MISTAKEN ON ONE WORD AND HAVE EDITED THIS POST TO REFLECT IT(INCONCLUSIVE) THANKS ALL.


Still can't find it. I've even tried posting parts of the quote in case it was just a mistake with grammar or something. Although if i don't actually add the quotes i'm referenced to a bunch of obscure, hyper-conservative websites which blindly advocate anything that has to do with war, intolerance, and scientific ignorance.

Maybe we should bring in the CSI team to find this "evidence" of yours. By the way, a random quote by some neo-con nut job still wouldn't constitute evidence even if it were to be found. It's just one person's opinion who happens to find himself in the extreme minority.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> bombastic


Great word!


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2006)

--


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Wendy, what in God's name is unhealthy about what i said? Because i liked Martin's usage of an underused word??? :shock: 
Or maybe you thought i said that because the word includes the word "bomb"? That wasn't the case, if that's what you were thinking. I just like the word.

And as for my sarcastic quips at walkingdead...is it so much to ask to provide evidence to back up one's point?

Wendy, you're the one who needs growing up if you find all this too offensive. In other words, i know you are, but what am I?


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

And for that matter, what did Martin say that was so offensive? That whole speech of his was tame by his standards.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2006)

--


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2006)

double post :wink:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oh my this is lengthy, lolololol.

Agree with Wendy for the same things I keep banging on about...

1. Gross generalizations.
2. One word pot-shots at people.
3. Not just a calm discussion - with R-E-S-P-E-C-T (sing it Aretha!) for the other party, and an understanding that nothing is as simple as it seems. That there is more than one reason for the way anything is.

And again, ooooo you make me angry, 8) you say, "Dreamer you already know it." *No! I could guess a variety of reasons, but I wanted to hear your reason. *

But I digress, and I know I get my knickers in a twist, and get feisty and defensive, but I like to talk things out, not carry on.

At any rate. Oh, people why can't we just get along? 

OK, I swore I wouldn't respond, but I can't help myself, but this is with no malice.

Yes, America is *capitalist* and encourages free enterprise and the entrepeneur sp?. I think that is the evil word that no one will say, and I don't know why?

That's what the Middle East (certain countries) and other countries despise about us -- I thought you would use that evil word CAPITALISM. But we aren't the only capitalist country in the world. *And if we Americanise sp?, that would indicate that the countries in question that are "vicitims" have ALLOWED this process.

The irony of oil-producing countries which want to stay in the Middle Ages re: their society are also capitalist -- sort of, but they manipulate supply and demand of their key export. They sit on a huge wealth of oil and use it as a weapon at their discretion. But I'm not anti-Middle Eastern, I greatly dislike tyrants, some "Kingdoms" there, Kingdoms! I dislike certain traditions in these countries, based on ancient history (where women are treated like trash), but I am not anti-Middle Eastern.

But terrorists, they scare me. And they can be born and bred anywhere in the world. Anywhere. I am anti-terrorists, and anti-fundamentalists. The latter also can exists anywhere and be fundamentalist about anything as well.

No one forced Britain to have a McDonalds -- it was a business deal. Many see it as a miserable fast food joint (I do and don't frequent it), however, it has the right to exist. Britain or any other country that has one, allowed it into the country. I assume the franchises are run by the Brits and that the employees are British.*

Why didn't a British store offer an alternative? Or why not boycott what you don't want? Why didn't your government refuse to allow McDonalds franchises?

As an example.

1. Firstly I don't eat red meat or fried foods at all, so I haven't been to one in about 9 years! No lie. Lost 10 pounds without trying. McDonalds as a result is offering healthier fare and other franchises have sprung up to answer this call. Salads, chicken that is not dipped in hideous batter, etc. Fruit salads. Supply for a demand.

2. Many *Americans* are tired of the loss of "Mom and Pop" stores to huge conglomerates such as MacDonalds and the ubiquitous Starbucks coffee places. Many stop frequenting Starbucks. I go to another place where they offer endless coffee (which I shouldn't drink) for about a buck.

3. *BUT, these businesses generate jobs -- and here, I was stunned, some pay way above minimum wage to attract workers.* Often they are the first jobs that young people have where they learn a work ethic. It's also a great job if you want something low key.

4. Most important, *if you don't like the place, don't go.* Supply and demand. Boycotting certain establishments gives way to others.

5. *Why blame the US? Why not blame, Mr. MacDonald, lol?*

This is like, if you don't like Mercedes Benz, why not blame the company, not the Germans as a whole, or the German government? If you don't like them, don't buy them. This is the trend here to avoid buying large autos.

Unfortunately it is killing the US car market which didn't plan for a switch to smaller cars. Their bad. But many are losing their jobs because of bad management, not the government. I know. I live in Detroit, the Motor City.

As I just read in a great article... too long to post this is simply called *anti-ism* The problem isn't America it's the company called McDonalds. You imply your country is a victim of this. You should be anti-McDonalds, no? This confuses me. McDonalds doesn't represent America, it represents McDonalds.

OK, then "bombastic patriotism". That is what Wendy is referring to. I wouldn't call the royal family, "Trust fund babies" or "Spoiled Lazy Royals" who do nothing but have affairs and play polo all day and have access to the best health care in the country when the rest of you don't -- I don't even think of them that way. They are part of the history of your country.

The reason we have "patriotism" which ALL countries have... what about this soccer cup coming up where people off each other in the stands if their team loses. The Russians cheating at figure skating in the Olympics, etc. We are all proud of our heritage.

Well American heritage is FOREIGN. Our country is one of immigrants. I am of German and Irish descent. We have immigrants from just about everywhere in the world. We are an INTERNATIONAL country by nature. People WANT to live here, no one dragged them here.

My maternal grandfather escaped the old Ottoman Empire, came to this country speaking only German, became a train repairman. My grandparents were poor. But his daughter, my mother, in one generation became a doctor.

We have 50 states. 50 stars on the flag. We want to feel unified even though each state has its own unique flavor and POV, etc. And we have an international COUNTRY. The patriotism here is to Remind/Encourage/Reinforce a sense of unity of all of these different countries and states. The population of California in 10-20 years? don't quote me will be predominantly hispanic. Hispanics from Mexico, many of them. They are bringing their own values and belief into this country, yet they will be US Citizens. This is of great concern to us. It is a big debate? What do we do with immigrants now when the country is overflowing?

I feel very fortunate to live in America. But America is full of faults. But so is EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in this world. And to portray other countries as victims of America, while at the same time coming here in droves, and asking us for assistance ... well that I don't understand.

I know I get very defensive. But I know that just as there are misrepresentatoins in the media about other countries, you receive misrepresentations about us.

As somone said, we're all reading the same newspapers, the same media. I get the BBC and CBC here in Detroit. I see a lot of Patriotism in Canada. The BBC have a more "stiff upper lip" demeanor about things, but I understand living in the UK can be great. I've been there several times. Britain, and Scotland. I'd like to see more.

OK, done.

I think, lol.
Oh me knickers be in a twist.
And Martin I'm sorry, I wanted your answer as you wouldn't give it, but I didn't intend for you to answer ASAP as I know you're going through a rough time. Appreciated. I think I understand the problem here.

Here's to peaceful discussions as Wendy noted.
Peace,
L,
D 8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OMG, I spelled McDonalds wrong, lololol.

I think Americans should get rid of all the Irish pubs we have around here. Brit ones too. The ones with Brit owners and employees who play bagpipes! Have trivia night, drink too much and have their Aussie friends over.

In Los Angeles, there is a rather large Brit community. My favorite thing... in Pasadena we had a British couple that set up a LOVELY little Brit "village." Prince CHARLES came to visit! They were always out in their wellies watering the beautiful garden. My girlfriends and I attended tea on our birthdays. They sold only Britsh goods. Employed only Brits.

I loved it. A taste of England in L.A.

Not comparable to McDonalds, but these Brits were US citizens. Bless 'em. And going to a Brit Pub with the flag and "God Save the Queen Mum!" and all that carrying on is wonderful.

And shepard's pie, fish and chips, and bangers and mash
(I don't eat the fish and chips as they are fried) 8)


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> R-E-S-P-E-C-T


Er, I thought respect had to be earnt? Has america earned this respect?

Anywho..



> And going to a Brit Pub with the flag and "God Save the Queen Mum!" and all that carrying on is wonderful.
> 
> And shepard's pie, fish and chips, and bangers and mash


 :lol: A perfect stereotype. Except for one small detail. It's 'God save the Queen'. Not her mum. She died a year ago. But other than that, perfecto.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Tsk, Martin, lol....
I always say, "God Save the Queen Mum!", or used to before her passing. I always like her, and I used to tease Andy C. with that! I do know it's "God shave our gracious Queen, shave her with shaving cream, God shave our Queen!" (We used to sing that at camp -- age 7, lol.) Interesting that the same melody is "Our Country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing...."

And Respect (sing it Aretha!) was meant re: discussions *here on the board is all. Sigh. And perhaps for some respect for differences among people -- all over the world.*

And sadly, indeed we are very different, you and I Oh Martin  , but this is to be expected. I see it every time I look at the NYTimes in the a.m. -- get it free in my email.

And sorry:
Flight 93 was beautifully made -- one of the best films I've seen save "Capote" in the past year or so. I can't think of the director's name but I believe he's British, may be wrong.

Did a super job. Brilliant director capturing the claustrophia in the plane, the pace if you noticed got faster and faster the nearer we came to the crash. And what I like is the actual recreation, using real people (members of the military, FAA, etc. playing themselves).

The families attended the premiere of the film, approved of it. I don't know where all the money will go.... Greengrass? what is that director's name? But the families were consulted at length before this film was made. It was on their approval that the director/producer went ahead with the project.

What I like is that it explained the confusion of that day. Why so many mistakes were made. I liked it because I was sick of conspiracy theorists who said things such as 9/11 never happened, was set up, etc. My word, something out of the X-Files. This is AMERICANS saying this. And of course they were the ones who thought it was amusing to set off their cell phones in the middle of the film.

When it was over, it was stone silent in the theatre. No one understands, this never happened to us before. So now we've caught up with Europe and other countries.

As a student of film, having worked in film/TV in my salad days, I rate everything about it as A+. I don't even remember if there was music. This wasn't a "Hollywood disaster flick". It was more like a documentary, only better.

Not one actor was a "star" either.

More praise, but I daren't.

Cheers Martin, even if we can't see eye to eye -- and so goes diplomacy,
D 8)


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Wendy said:


> I didnt feel offended in anyway, Sebastian. Just annoyed. When I read this thread, mainly the part I quoted, the words that came to my mind were 'childish', 'tiresome' and 'disrespectful'.
> 
> What about a GOOD debate in which people make sure to _respectfully_ direct themselves and their words to eachother? I find that missing here.
> 
> Edited for spelling


Wendy,

When someone comes on here calling something as frighteningly relevant as global warming an "unproven bunch of hysterical hogwash", and then offers no evidence to support his claim, i'm entitled to respond with the contempt such claims deserve. I was also called an "insulting idiot" by this person. Why am I the one being childish?

There are plenty of people on here who I will disagree with but you'll notice very few that i act so dismissively of. The reason for this is respect. Take Homeskooled for example. I disagree with a lot of what he says (but, it should be noted, agree with a lot as well), but he makes such a compelling argument to support his case that i'll treat his opinion with the respect it deserves. And there are plenty of things that i'm entirely ignorant of and will therefore either stay away from the debate entirely or just lurk from afar and listen to others debate it. What i won't do is throw in a random opinion bereft of any logical reasoning with no evidence to support why i think that way.

Global Warming is too important an issue to allow arbitrary skepticism to poison public internet forums without being rebuked.

s.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Well Damn It to Hell...

I'd like to say my post, *which addressed the original issue of this
thread*, was totally passed by all in the midst of this he said, she
said, he said stuff. :evil:

I thought you would at least appreciate the fact based support,
Sebastian.

Now I'm mad too!X!! :evil:

Well, not really. Just kind of. :?

Love to the whole dadgum bunch of you...Crazy people we all are. 

terri*


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

After signing off, I thought, well, I might as well get in to the brawl.

I guess my thoughts are addressed to you, Martin.

Have you ever heard the old saying " I can badmouth my
family, but I don't want anyone else badmouthing my family." ?
Well, it goes along with your - I think America sucks but not all
Americans. It's just going to rustle people's feathers to make
comments like that. Adding the "not all Americans" does not
take the sting out of it. I hate here in the South when people say,
"I'm not racist. I like black people. It's just the ones that act like
N-word that I don't like." I can assure you, that offends all black
people.

So, alot of the stuff you are posting as of late in regards to Americans
is hurtful to me on a personal level. I am America. I make up
part of what is called America. I think saying something along the
lines of I hate American policy on blah, blah, blah would not be
a direct attack. But some of your other stuff, yeah, it hurts.

But, as they say around these parts...It is your God-given right to say
so.

If it is your intent to offend, hurt and aggravate, then I guess you are
accomplishing your heart's desire. If these are not the things you are
really trying to convey...Give the US'ers on the board a break and 
stop spanking us. We've had enough licks for a while.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

terri*,

I did read what you posted and considered commenting on it but i just got lost in everything else that was being posted. Sorry. Certainly wasn't ignoring it.

The evidence in that post you quoted, while not quantitative, definitely supports what scientists have been saying.

I'd like to respond to a lot more posts on here but i just have so little time as i'm usually on here at work and i have to rush when i'm saying things. It's very frustrating. These selfish bastards i work for like to insist that I cease all non-work related internet activity or at least minimize it, so i don't have the opportunity to respond to everything i'd like to.

Ugh. I'm tired. No more pancakes on lunch for me.

s.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

terri said:


> If it is your intent to offend, hurt and aggravate, then I guess you are
> accomplishing your heart's desire. If these are not the things you are
> really trying to convey...Give the US'ers on the board a break and
> stop spanking us. We've had enough licks for a while.


AMEN. Again, no one understands that what happend on 9/11 chaged Americans. In MANY ways. The WTC was bombed by a truck bomb in '93? But we weren't exposed to the terrorism in Europe, or other countries before that. Not that magnitude. We don't want pity, just some understanding.

I wanted to quote everything you said Terri, but this is also what I'm talking about. Sebastian, there are some here who ARE respectful. Others not. Others, sometimes. I try my best and get b-i-t-c-h-y and get me knickers in a twist. I made another comment on this re: United 93.

It gets more and more painful to be attacked over and over. And with no direct response, just insults.

And in the Global warming discussion, I think Widescreened? I forgot was indeed inappropriate and this is another person referred to.

Interesing Terri. Yes, we are American, but we are also America. That's what hurts, Martin, or whoever else. We are not a stereotype.

Makes me sad now. 
And :evil: 
But what can I do. What can any of us do?
Diplomacy, which we need desperately these days -- not looking too good.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

> The evidence in that post you quoted, while not quantitative, definitely supports what scientists have been saying.


Well, I had to look up quantitative and now know why I didn't know
that word...it has to do with math and numbers. :shock: !! :lol:

I did want to mention that I am certainly not debate material, but stress
that I am from the heart material. All my post above came from a
nonaggressive, but heartfelt place. I did feel like I needed to say
them instead of letting them run around my head for a few days.

Basically I'm just an old Oma, watching Teletubbies with my 1 year
old granddaughter, and wanting the world to be a kinder, gentler
place for her to be.

No matter whose (who's ? ) A$$ I have to kick ! 8)

God Bless America and God Bless the Queen (MuM) !!


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Look, I don't intend to offend anyone. And right now I don't care if anyone believes that or not. I can forgive almost anything, except deliberate rudeness.

Dreamer can 'sigh' whenever I mention America. Terri*, you can feel hurt when I mention Americans. But I'm not talking about you. I have said this more times that I have said..'Just One More Wafer Thin Mint'.

If a Muslim came on this board, you might experience more spite, anger, whatever, than you think I am directing at you, but they don't. And if they did, it is more than likely I would defend your corner.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

You :



> Terri*, you can feel hurt when I mention Americans. But I'm not talking about you.


Me :



> Adding the "not all Americans" does not
> take the sting out of it


.

You:



> Look, I don't intend to offend anyone. And right now I don't care if anyone believes that or not. I can forgive almost anything, except deliberate rudeness.


Martin, my bit of black pudding that I just can't quite swallow but refuse
to spit out...

I believe you are not intending to get your friends on this board
upset. On the other hand, I think you just don't understand what
I am saying as seen above. But I want to just leave it as it is because
sometimes people just don't get each other on certain points.

( I edited the above in later today as I kept rehashing this thread in
my head. I'm glad I found the dialogue to "What is the Meaning
of Life" because it has helped me put this particular part of the thread
down and get back to where we started.)

Mr. Creosote Meets a Wafer-thin Mint
or 
The Logical Conclusion to a Night of Bingeing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maitre D: And finally, monsieur, a wafer-thin mint.

Mr Creosote: No.

Maitre D: Oh sir! It's only a tiny little thin one.

Mr Creosote: No. Fuck off - I'm full... [Belches]

Maitre D: Oh sir... it's only wafer thin.

Mr Creosote: Look - I couldn't eat another thing. I'm absolutely stuffed. Bugger off.

Maitre D: Oh sir, just... just one...

Mr Creosote: Oh all right. Just one.

Maitre D: Just the one, sir... voila... bon appetit...

[Mr Creosote somehow manages to stuff the wafer-thin mint into his mouth and then swallows. The Maitre D takes a flying leap and cowers behind some potted plants. There is an ominous splitting sound. Mr Creosote looks rather helpless and then he explodes, covering waiters, diners, and technicians in a truly horrendous mix of half digested food, entrails and parts of his body. People start vomiting.] 
Maitre D: [returns to Mr Creosote's table] Thank you, sir, and now the check.

:lol: :lol: :lol

"It can be argued that the scene is one of the most repulsive in 20th-century cinema. Director Quentin Tarantino has confessed to being nauseated by this scene, but critics with stronger stomachs have praised its dark humour."

"What is the meaning of Life?", indeed.

So what's say, no more thin mints for us all for a while?

(Now, with all this said...
Can we get back to Global warming?)


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> I have said this more times that I have said..'Just One More Wafer Thin Mint'.


Oh Martin, that's hilarious. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was just thinking of this scene the other day. I've got to buy that movie.

By the way, this was on http://www.sciam.com today (Scientific America magazine...this was a link to a Washington Post article on that website)...it's particularly relevant because it deals with skeptics of the whole global warming phenomenon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html



> Since the dawn of the industrial era, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen steadily from about 280 to about 380 parts per million. In the past century, the average surface temperature of Earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Much of that warming has been in the past three decades. Regional effects can be more dramatic: The Arctic is melting at an alarming rate. Arctic sea ice is 40 percent thinner than it was in the 1970s. Glaciers in Greenland are speeding up as they slide toward the sea. A recent report shows Antarctica losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year.
> 
> The permafrost is melting across broad swaths of Alaska, Canada and Siberia. Tree-devouring beetles, common in the American Southwest, are suddenly ravaging the evergreen forests of British Columbia. Coral reefs are bleaching, scalded by overheated tropical waters. There appear to have been more strong hurricanes and cyclones in recent decades, Category 3 and higher -- such as Katrina.
> 
> ...


s.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

> Since the dawn of the industrial era, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen steadily from about 280 to about 380 parts per million.


Now that there would be quantitative. :wink:

Good article.



> All of the above is part of the emerging, solidifying scientific consensus on global warming -- a consensus that raises the urgent political and economic issue of climate change. This isn't a theory anymore. This is happening now.


This is happening NOW. Anyone who doesn't get this has just not had
enough thin mints, for God's sake!

t*


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2006)

Sebastian, I really dont want to discuss this any further. But want to say your point is noted.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

On a completely unrelated matter Terri*, you said:



> I am America


Why did you keep this secret from me? My god woman, if I knew you were a continental land mass, you wouldn't just be at the back of the queue, you'd be far over the desert horizon, drinking water out of the oasis with the rest of the menagerie.

8)


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

8) ,

:?

:roll: ( Alfred, What's to be done with the boy? )

:wink:

t*.x


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

Ha...I love this thread...every bit about it.

The childish lack of respect, the political ramblings, the insults and apologies, the obsessive inability for anyone to leave any of the numerous topics alone, the stereotypes and the wafer-thin mints beings handed out.

I'm going to stay completely out of it all (after the damage I did re my stereotyping of American tourists  ) except to say thankyou to you all for keeping me entertained for a good 45 minutes or so on this one thread alone.

Loved every minute of it!!!


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Quantitative is measuring something numerically. Qualitative is measuring something non-numerically. Just think quantity and quality. That's pretty much all I have to add to this thread, but I figured I'd put all my statistics courses to good use. Continue.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Hi Enngirl,

That was good information to help explain quantitative and Qualitative.

Below is another way of explaining it that can be applied in the
real world.

What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is represented 
as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:

H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

and
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But,

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

And,

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.

A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that While Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.

:lol:

Sorry, totally off-topic, but it's Friday and I thought we could use
a little break from the worries of the world.

Have a great day, everyone!
terri*


----------

