| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
23 May 2006 09:46:55 PM |
| Object: |
Bush Just Doesn't Get it On Global warming |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/bush.gore.ap/index.html
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Just Doesn't Get it On Global warming |
24 May 2006 04:10:27 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1148438815.443269.75160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/bush.gore.ap/index.html
Budikka
I think it's something to do with not really believing that pollution will
matter - because god made this planet for humans and won't let silly things
like global warming kill us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Just Doesn't Get it On Global warming |
24 May 2006 04:20:19 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1148438815.443269.75160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/bush.gore.ap/index.html
Budikka
I think it's something to do with not really believing that pollution will
matter - because god made this planet for humans and won't let silly things
like global warming kill us.
Silly me! I never thought of that.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Just Doesn't Get it On Global warming |
25 May 2006 01:10:33 AM |
|
|
In article <1148505619.048953.214720@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1148438815.443269.75160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/bush.gore.ap/index.html
Budikka
I think it's something to do with not really believing that pollution will
matter - because god made this planet for humans and won't let silly things
like global warming kill us.
Silly me! I never thought of that.
And anyway the rapture is coming soon so it doesn't make any difference.
Budikka
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Just Doesn't Get it On Global warming |
23 May 2006 11:10:39 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in news:1148438815.443269.75160
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/bush.gore.ap/index.html
Budikka
Unless it adds to their wealth and power, Bush's owners don't want him to
"get it".
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Just Doesn't Get it On Global warming |
27 May 2006 08:05:59 AM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in news:1148438815.443269.75160
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/bush.gore.ap/index.html
Budikka
Unless it adds to their wealth and power, Bush's owners don't want him to
"get it".
It's junk science. You libs may think it's a good idea to screw up the
economy based upon bogus predictions that the sky is falling, but the
rest of us aren't that dumb.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Just Doesn't Get it On Global warming |
27 May 2006 07:29:29 AM |
|
|
Fester <not@home.com> wrote in
news:X8Ydg.16635$JW5.13319@southeast.rr.com:
Woden wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1148438815.443269.75160 @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/bush.gore.ap/index.html
Budikka
Unless it adds to their wealth and power, Bush's owners don't want
him to "get it".
It's junk science. You libs may think it's a good idea to screw up
the economy based upon bogus predictions that the sky is falling, but
the rest of us aren't that dumb.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506C
Questions for Al Gore
By Dr. Roy Spencer : BIO| 25 May 2006
Dear Mr. Gore:
I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the
threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very
good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was
effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie
David, for a job well done.
As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you
mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my
congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that
occurred to me while watching the movie.
1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the
ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You
surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many
years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and
that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina,
which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to
fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea.
Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for
global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe
weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed
actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply
due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate
change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature
review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that
attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study
which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my
office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists
when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific
predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust
scientists' predictions now?
3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election
being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican
presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The
points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not
alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.
4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric
temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very
effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2
increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature
increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant
cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that
there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old
relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint
of these alternative views?
5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly
killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you
had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have
probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model
examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that
the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those
countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like
the poor people in India and China?
6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are
drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know
that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea
ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes.
Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a
computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around
looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this
happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it
was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas
emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back
then were low, too?
7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto
Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step
forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on
global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small
emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no
developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments
under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.
8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the
global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can
reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this
will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a
probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not
mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is
because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's
view?
Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for
mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so.
You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many
important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.
I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the
right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject
of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a
"moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with
misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be
educated on the issue.
Your "Good Friend,"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
(aka 'Phil Jones')
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"No, Congressman, Checks and Balances aren't about bribes."
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
