Inconvenient Truth environment debate

LiveReal.org

Environment Debate

The Darkside:

Read a review of Al Gore's movie from a conservative

Environment Debate heats up with Gore's Inconvenient Truth

The Republican think-tank propaganda machines are gearing up to fight Gore

"Tennessee Center for Policy Research" which from a quick look at its home page you can quickly deduce is a right-wing pseudo-think tank.

I heard on Countdown that Gore's house has 20 rooms including offices, security arrangements and guest house. But the AP story says he pays an average of $1359. Our townhouse, with two bedrooms, costs $250 per month on average to power, though admittedly our appliances are 23 years old, soon to be replaced. Al Gore's electricity use for such a large complex seems relatively modest to me.

First the "think"-tank tennesseepolicy.org (sorry we don’t link to hate sites). And now the article that caused this long debate from newstribune.com.

Comments and Debate:

Well, now I've heard it all. Al Gore, the Academy Award winner of the

"Inconvenient Truth" documentary about global warming, got caught with his hand in the cookie jar the other day. Evidently his 20-room mansion with 8 bathrooms in Nashville uses 20 times the electricity of
the average American household. Same with natural gas. Who cares, right? Well, not really. This is what you call hypocrisy...and of the highest order.

Al Gore goes around telling us all that we're environmental sinners because we're
causing global warming and dirtying the planet. And yet there's Gore...riding in his gas-guzzling private jet and sitting in his 20-room mansion that almost takes an entire power plant to run. The message is loud and clear: do as I say, but not as I do. Typical politician. But the firestorm is growing, so Al Gore's office had to craft a response to the deafening roar of criticism over his Tennessee energy consumption.

According to a spokesperson, the Gores purchase offsets to reduce their overall
carbon footprint. Since they invest in wind power and the like, as well as drive hybrid vehicles, this somehow balances out their gigantic power consumption at their mansion. Oh..and they had solar power panels installed...and they pay more for their power to support renewable energy. So we're supposed to believe that the good outweighs the bad here. Let's not forget. He probably plants trees also. They turn carbon dioxide to oxygen you know.

The bottom line here is that this is all completely absurd. Man is not causing any significant climate change. The carbon molecules are out there. Use them if you got 'em.

Gore got busted for not walking the talk.. And now he's trying to backpedal. Perhaps people will see right through the environmental hypocrisy of the global warming movement for once.
-Ronald, Republican

What I find funny is these Republicans actually flatter themselves by thinking Al Gore cares about what they think. It almost makes me think they are jealous of Gore. I know I am.. Gore got to hang out with Madonna, Leonardo, and the big Hollywood stars and people who make America's biggest outsourced product (maybe only outsourced product).

The rest of the story: Gore has been currently installing a Solar panel on his home! So frustrating that people are so naive to believe such junk from a republican think tank.
-Roger, Democrat

Are the Republicans going to continue to ignore the message of global warming just because Gore made a documentary about it.(because they don't like him)....are they going to continue to silence the scientists who say it is happening. Is the media going to concentrate on Gore's house and not on what really is important. Global Warming is happening. So what are we going to do about it?

The truth is: Bush did silence the scientists about it...Bush did ignore gas usage in this country by giving big tax breaks to people who bought big SUVs and trucks...Bush made jokes about it...and would not stand up to big corporations who pollute. He completely ignored the subject until he saw the polls showing that the American people are concerned about it...now he pretends to wants to do something about our fuel usage (but not too much, we wouldn't want to upset the Saudis or big oil)

Sigh. I hate to admit it, but the folks sleeping with big tobacco are the same folks sleeping with big coal. The Dems are trying to regulate both.

As for "the anti-biz mentality of dems will kill the US economy if they get enough power" you've apparently forgotten how well the economy and "biz" did the last time the Dems were in power...the Clinton years were wonderful for business and even the middle class did great from refinancing their houses...
-Sherry, Moderate

If one was really worried about the environment, he would be doing something to stop evil folks from an eventual showdown with the US and Israel. But one must ignore the rants of the leaders in Iran and a few other places that have the full stated religious or political intention of killing as many Americans and Israel people as possible.

If one was really worried about the environment, he would learn from real facts about energy instead of watching some moron like Gore pull off a movie with a lot of crap in it -with very little to do with real facts. It would be nice to see a movie with all of the facts and numbers and conclusions from real engineers and scientists that don't have an ego/political cause going on --put Gore in his lying place. I realize lying is a harsh word; but when the facts are stretched out of proportion to distort the truth -it is lying.

Energy use of fossil fuel is the reason you folks eat and watch tv. If you want to give those things up, then vote democratic.

Elec use of Coal plants is one small part of using less petroleum from foreign countries. the balance of people and progress and the environment is a tough job; but Pelosi type ignorance is not good for the future of the US.

the anti-biz mentality of dems will kill the US economy if they get enough power. the US business community will continue the flight to private companies (no public stock) to clear themselves of a lot of dems instilling more communist type control of all companies. the stock market will not prosper in the coming years with companies having to worry about dems in office killing the reasons that make capitalism work.
-Jaysen, Republican

Calling Gore and his excellent film anything resembling moronic wins you the Moron of 2007 award. I have never known another human being so against the greening of or world. It seems that you should still be supporting the massive wood industry that the ancient civilizations ran their world on.

Even though these civilizations fell because they did not do a good job with sustainability. (in other words they chopped down everything in site leading to no resources close to home causing expansion and more wars AND they destroyed the environmental balance and created deserts were it was once fertile)

It is what is happening now. You cannot maintain the present global structure with oil and coal.

You would have to be a true MORON not to see the huge implications of a such a environmental catastrophe that is headed our way. Of course our economy runs on oil. DUH! Everybody knows that.

The smart and awake people also realize that if we do not change our dependency on such an old paradigm we will fall as ROME. We will leave future generations with depleting environments.

Stealing other peoples resources is what an empire does after all, but all empires fall.
Being at war with every little tribe in the Middle East is a waste of intellect and energy.

Electricity should be the standard medium of energy. All things should run off it. There is no need for fossil fuels except in very small doses. Every region of the country and world has a unique energy resource. Up north it is geothermal and a mixture of biofuels. In my neck of the woods we are saturated in sunlight. Great for solar. We also are surrounded by oceans that continuously beat up against the shores with amazing force. Tap that constant push and pull and imagine the energy.

All you meat eaters love cows and what could be better than tapping all that methane. Farmers out here sell back energy to the energy companies because they have learned to reuse the methane.

Biofuels is a huge no brainer. What do you do with tons of cellulose waste from plants?
Reuse & recycle!

That's what nature does; it recycles and creates no waste. But humans love waste. They are dumb and lack intelligence.

We are surrounded by energy

To continually have this attitude puts you in league with the classic people of old who could not see into a future because their gaze was shortsighted and trapped in ways of thinking that had long outgrown them.

And you choose to make this about democrats and republicans.

This is about people who are trapped in old mental paradigms and those who have the intelligence and awareness to look for other solutions.
Very Simple.

You should really get out more and see the larger world around you. It's like you have not left the house in 40 years.
-LiveReal

It has become quite obvious that the Corporate Right has used these attacks on global warming and its proponents as a way to skirt responsibility.
They KNOW about the impact of carbon emissions on the atmosphere but to find a solution would put an end to the industries that they make so much money from. It will effect too many aspects of their industry.
It will make it inconvenient for all of us.

The same way the forest industry blamed the environmentalist and the spotted owl for destroying the timber industry.

They do not like to take responsibility for anything it seems.
They do not think that we should have to make sustainability an important part of our lives.

We can always rob the trees and coal and oil from other countries.
We do it now. Much of our timber is extracted from other countries to the loss of their sustainability. But the leaders in those countries are very much like the leaders of this country. They only seem to care about money. So they sell off their peoples national resources to the highest bidder.

We need leaders that will ask the citizens to make sacrifices for the benefit of the whole citizenry.
And we have to stop thinking of US and them countries. We are one people living on one planet.
This nationalistic thinking is just creating more conflict and less focus on solutions.

The thing that really discredits any of the global warming opponents is WHY?
What do people get out of proposing a cleaner healthy world? Could it be a cleaner healthier world? The opponents are always attacking the Global Warming Initiatives. They stopped the Kyoto Protocol. Why?
Could it be that they are afraid they will have to clean up their act and will not be able to just pollute and take no responsibility?
They will not have to take action and improve emissions standards and build cleaner plants?
But of course. That is the only thing that makes sense.

This is about responsibility and change.

And we know how much the conservative right hates CHANGE and RESPONSIBILITY.
-Doug, Liberal

I think they're operating under the philosophy of Madame Pompadour..."After me, the flood"*...these people are extravagantly rewarded, extraordinarily privileged, as a result of ignoring the future...why should they sacrifice?

Not only will they not live to see the consequences, but they trust that by

accumulating enough wealth, they will be able to shield their children and grandchildren, cocooning them in that wealth so that they will not suffer any consequences either. I mean, if you gather enough millions, you and yours will always be able to afford money for heating and air conditioning, you will always be able to find some chalet in the Swiss Alps with clean air, you will always be safe...what motivation is there for them to bring about change?

George trusts that Jenna and Barbara will never have to sweat or shiver. He's probably right. That's what keeps it all going.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/4834.html
-Mary, Democrat

There is a great book out--"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" which has a lot of "inconvenient truths" in it. I'm sure most of you will not like it but I think some republican readers would. I recommend if you are a republican looking to switch over to a democrat you should order it from Amazon. It is worth it. There has always been a "big crisis" which we must "do something about" "before it's too late. In the 70s it was global cooling and the population bomb.

People who lecture others about changing their lifestyles should walk the walk and should be held accountable. People and scientists disagree about the cause(s) of the warming over the past decade, the amount of future warming, whether warming will be catastrophic or beneficial and even the science of measuring the warming. We need to be good stewards of the world we live in. However, I like what industry and technology has done over the last decade to improve our lives and I don't want to go back.

If you want to hang your clothes out on the line instead of using a clothes dryer--good for you. I will do what I believe is environmentally good even though I am a little inconvenienced by it (recycling). I used non-aerosol hairspray for decades and now I'm thinking--well, that was dumb. I don't think it made a bit of difference and I will bet that the people who told us to do that did not give it a second thought. It was the fad of the day. It would be incorrect to say that anyone who questions the catastrophic predictions are misinformed, in denial, or worse. It is possible to have an alternative well-informed opinion.
-Amy, Republican

It seems many in our world are quite fine with ignoring the byproducts of a corporate/industrial/consumer/materialistic world culture.

It is easy for many to ignore that most of our countryside has been paved over with asphalt or cement. That millions of animals are slaughtered to create a product for human consumption and ignoring the fact that all the waste from this factory fueled affair is creating toxic environments in the outside world and inside our bodies.

I know it may be convenient to go to the big chain food store and get some cow or chicken
but for people to continually ignore the consequences of this type of industry does not speak well of those involved.

To ignore that the purpose of a cow is to convert grass into milk is key. To deprive a cow of grazing and instead feed them corn because there is a surplus is ignorant and dangerous. Cows cannot digest corn. It causes disease. Our grassland needs grazing ruminants to keep the ecosystems healthy. Feedlots are very destructive to the health and welfare of not only us but the land as well. But as long as you buy it they will make it. There are people growing foods in sustainable methods but they do not have public awareness on their side.

All this back and forth over the facts regarding global warming is a mute point.
We must stop with the massive consumer driven economy.
It creates massive waste. The landfills are full of packaging and items that could have been re-used. It is cheaper to buy something new than to fix it. Saw blades are cheaper to buy than sharpening them.

There are 6Billion people on the planet and most of them live on less than $2 a day.
Countries like ours create most of the waste and use most of the resources.
It is very easy for us rich nation citizens to go to sleep and think our lifestyle is the best and must be maintained. I agree it is very wonderful to have a dryer in the house and go to the store and not be concerned with the byproducts of our actions.

BUT when you begin to analyze your footprint on the world it will be quite scary.

It seems most people live in a fantasy world where the living standard we have is the way things should be. But if people were to look behind the facade and see the horrors and misguides decisions they might wake up and start making better choices.

I am constantly perplexed by the mainstream attitude towards our world. Maybe I am crazy but I think our world is insane and very destructive. We spend billions on weapons and we allow our food industry to create hundreds of thousands of non-nutritional products. We let our kids eat at McDonalds and Taco Bell where most of the food was created in a lab in New Jersey. We tell Iran that they cannot have nuclear weapons but we have more than all the other countries combined and are the only country to have used them on fellow beings.

Do you think caring about the atmosphere and the various ecosystems health is really a fad?
If you think you have an alternative well informed opinion by guess is that you may just be choosing not to see things how they really are.
-Doug, The Jerk from LA

I choose not to see things as you think they really are and you choose not to see things as I think they really are. My research may be just as valid as yours and my 58 years may also lead me to see that people get worked up over some things that are passing and will be unimportant in 10 years. You tend to exaggerate on some topics and that may be just your way. I tend to go the other way. If you think that most of our countryside has been paved over you need to look down from an airplane and see that most of our countryside is not paved over. Who decides on the purpose of a cow? The topic was really global warming and the environment and then it switched to vegetarianism or animal rights or something. Anyway you are discounting out of hand others' opinions which may actually be well thought out.
-Amy, Republican

You moved the topic to how industry and technology has made life an improvement.
I used how we have industrialized our agriculture as a point of fact.

I get really riled up when people refer to my vegetarianism as a dietary choice.
It is a social, environmental and moral choice as well as dietary.

I am a vegetarian because I feel the culture abuses animals and the environment unnecessarily.
If people were more conscious they would not indulge in an activity that is bad for our health and ecosystem. I have no problem with carnivorous activity but let us please have some sense of respect for the balance of nature involved. Maybe it's because I read so much about the delicate balance of various ecosystems.

if you think cows should be kept in feed lots instead of grazing in open pastures than i have to question every viewpoint you hold.
-Doug, Liberal

Hah! Personally, I'm sure there will be a paradigm shift with regard to smoking. I mean, everything that you're saying about global warming pretty much follows the same pattern as the anti-smoking trends.

The folks who are on the anti-smoking bandwagon act like a smoker in their home for a couple of hours is going to wreck their health and pollute their environment irredeemably...won't let them smoke at their dinner table, put them out to do their business like the pooch...are terrified that walking through a mall once a week where 20% of the shoppers might smoke is going to put them in the hospital...want the smokers to just be excluded, ostracized, and otherwise mistreated...and they're certain they're utterly right even though it's patently laughable, the new superstition that allows everyone to pat themselves on the back while being just plain mean and bossy.

So what I'm saying is that everyone picks what they're going to react to, depending on their own personal self-interest.

But I don't know, I think that some republican followers are looking for information in comfortable places instead of doing your homework. I've at least read what the lung association says and I don't get my health information from the tobacco industry. The sources from which conservatives seem to get their information have a lot at $take financially in keeping things just as they are. I am saying they need to branch out a bit. Have you seen Gore's movie yet? No, well I haven't either but at least I plan to so I will know what I am talking about.

In any case, as I keep repeating, the idea of investing in green power sources is probably the best stock tip. Oil and its polluting cousins are quarter till over...
-Beth, Democrat

Very good points. You may be on to something with the Anti-Smoking / Environment comparison. While some things are fads we learn to turn a blind eye on other issues like the environment.

As for aerosol hair spray… Talk about second hand smoke!! I use hair spray sometimes and I have to leave the room where I spray it because if I breathe it in I almost fall over from the fumes. I dont see any fads there-- I think hairspray is bad for our lungs personally when breathing it in right after we spray. I think the bird flu, Ipods, Xbox, Starbucks, Atkins Diet (not a general diet), etc are definitely fads.

I think someone was right about how the media makes things into fads by extensive coverage then totally drop the story. It is just too bad that people do not keep things in mind that should not be fads.

Scientific data suggesting more intensive hurricanes could be a reason of global warming is definitely a reason to make sure we make some kind of tax on the atmosphere. This global warming will not go away it is similar to wearing seatbelts in a car.
-DJ, Moderate

Tax the atmosphere? Can you tax outside the US? What stops the corporation from passing the tax to the consumer? Do you have an energy source to replace the one you have shut down, or do you live in her Pollyanna world of oil/coal not going to be in demand in a few years? Can the US be competitive if we are the only country without an energy policy with teeth? Tax the atmosphere is dem talk for squashing the American economy.

There is not enough tax money or any money to build enough windmills or sunroofs or any other alternate energy to keep up with the demand of the world. What do you think China is going to do with all of the oil/coal that they are laying claim to all over the world? China and every other nation out there has goals of progress/domination/..., and they will not obtain this with alternate energy. China and every other nation out there is building nuclear plants and coal plants and whatever alt energy they can develop -but coal/oil/gas is king. Just guess what the price/gallon of gas will be this time next year- of course, the Mideast is probably going to decide that one.
-Jaysen, Republican

You are absolutely "walking the walk" on being a vegetarian and you certainly back up what you say on the matter of treating animals humanely by making the choice not to eat meat. Of course not all cattle are raised in feed lots but maybe most are. I certainly am not questioning your vegetarianism. I choose to eat meat because I think it is a good source of protein, it's healthy for my body, and I like it. I'm really quite healthy at this point. You are writing off a lot of people's opinions and wisdom if you don't listen to them on other issues because they don't agree with you on this one issue. All I was saying is that there is a lot of hype, misinformation, and hysteria being created on global warming and there are ways of discussing it and listening to other points of view without questioning someone's intelligence.
-Amy, Republican

That book is FRAUD! NOT RESEARCH

Sorry for the caps, but I'm sad to see you sinking to the level of Bill O'Reilly and company. (We've come to expect it from some whose mind has been fried by listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.)

I did a little Googling on the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming". The book was written by a LAWYER associated with one of the right wing "think" tanks! That isn't research on global warming. That's just propaganda!

You conservative folks are willing to take the opinion any fraudulent "expert" the right wing throws out there to bolster your politics. Here's an idea: Subscribe to Scientific American. He has, based on reading the findings of SCIENTISTS, and concluded that global warming is indeed caused by our activities. It's what most SCIENTISTS have concluded based on SCIENCE and EVIDENCE rather than the profound wish to bolster industrial profits.

Next time, please don't call this B.S. research! I almost believed you. For "research", it kind of requires there to be actual science involved instead of just politics.

For anyone interested, here's the link to the bio he wrote himself (obviously) on the website for the "think" tank.
-Beth, Democrat

The book was not compiled by a scientist, but it contains research from several scientists and pokes holes in much of the hype about global warming. You can reject it out of hand because of who wrote it. Al Gore is also not a scientist. He and others who are stating that the cause, solution, possible damage, etc about global warming is settled fact also have political and financial stake in saying what they are saying and trying to suppress any dissenting opinion.

As a laboratory scientist I am trained to suspect every result that I turn out. That is why we run controls every day on every test we perform even though the tests have been working in the past. We validate every procedure and every test and check the proficiency of every person performing every part of the test not to mention validating the instruments. The laboratory and the people working there have a financial stake in what we are doing. That's why there must be appropriate regulation, inspections and accreditation.

No, I don't analyze the data in the original abstracts on global warming. I read the current hype and then go to conservative sites to hear the other side on many issues. One side often makes more sense to me than the other. You do the very same thing. You are making a choice on which data to investigate and which to believe. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and National Review are informative and entertaining. I'm sure you read and listen to news that entertains you. They have a lot of accurate information that you will not find elsewhere and they condense into a practical time slot. If you have a specific current instance where they have falsified or hyped info on global warming then that can be argued but just attacking them out of hand because they are conservative is not an argument. I really don't think I've sunk to any level. I will continue to question and make an informed opinion from all kinds of sources.
-Amy, Republican

As I mentioned before, I haven't even seen Gore's movie but I sure don't know of any financial stake he might have in exposing global warming. The right-wing "think" tanks, on the other hand, are mainly funded by oil companies and other corporations with a lot to lose if the status quo changes.

My main sources of information are very mainstream media, not opinionated journals...I read the Palm Beach Post, Time Magazine, National Geographic (some of the articles), Smithsonian (some of the articles), on paper; and Seattle Times, CNN and MSNBC online. I watch one of the major networks' (we change around) every evening. None of those has an ax to grind, unlike the sources you and other republicans apparently use as your primary sources of information.

I also watch Countdown and I also read alternet.org and wonkette.com, but unlike you guys, I know those sources are opinion-based. I look to them primarily for entertainment and for a skew on the news that I might not get from my primary sources...but, unlike you guys, I recognize that they may not be telling me the whole story and I rarely send any stories from those because of that.

The conservatives I know are like you and the only things you seem to read are what validate your viewpoint. The right-wingers have convinced their followers that most of the newspapers in America, most of the TV networks in America, most of the college professors in America, and, most to the point, most of the scientists in America are pinkos determined to bring the economy and the country down. Funny how that pretty well encompasses all the smart people who try to communicate anything that might not have a right-wing skew. Just watch Fox News, read the National Review etc., and you'll never get any information that might contradict that viewpoint.

Y'all need to take your minds out for a walk in the mainstream...channel flip away from Fox once in a while and, if science is going to be discussed, get yourselves some reading material that just does science instead of corporate-support science.

Also, I'd forgotten about the SUV tax break...it really is incredible the extent to which Bush has done exactly the opposite of the leadership necessary to deal with the situation...but he never has led...he just follows along, doing what will benefit his socio-economic class and the short-term interests of his base, with no concern beyond that....
-Beth, Democrat

Plenty of smart guys including Patrick J Michaels, Mark Steyn, scientists, and so on believe Gore is a liar -- would have helped if Gore had put f-i-c-t-i-o-n at the end of his movie. Bashing me is kinda silly, -I did not even voice an opinion about global warming except that this movie presented as a documentary to save mankind -missed too many factual numbers to be considered any less than a lie.
-Jay, OK, Republican

Mark Steyn isn't a scientist. He's a Canadian conservative journalist. Didn't even go to college. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn

(I hate to resort to Wikipedia but his own site( http://www.marksteyn.com/ ) has no bio...not surprisingly.)

Patrick J. Michaels is at least a scientist...teaches at the University of Virginia...but his main claim to fame is (surprise, surprise) as the Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the (drumroll please) CATO Institute....another conservative "think" tank! (Might as well work for Exxon.)

These people are SHILLS for the oil industry, for corporations, for maintaining the status quo until their last breath. If you are going to talk about science, you need to get some objective sources. Like I said, subscribe to Scientific American.
-Kate, FL

Some people use real factual numbers and others lie. The very first most read article that comes up when I key in Scientific American Global Warming in Google is an article dated March 02, 2007 named “Global warming's intellectual dissidents” by Thomas Lifson.
-John, Kansas

Okay, I just did that and the first article that popped up had nothing to do with Scientific American. It's not from Scientific American, it's from americanthinker.com/blog/ (go down about a fourth of the page) which sure as hell ain't Scientific American. But Bob Giefenback is not, at least, on the Exxon payroll...further research on him indicates he's a middle of the roader on global warming, thinks Gore's over-simplified the issue. (Did I mention that I haven't even seen Gore's movie and that he had nothing to do with forming my opinion?)

Oh, my God, I thought you didn't do blogs. But in case you're blogging now, here's another mention of Giefenback and Exxon, though not in the same breath (Giefenback's mentioned in the comments below the article, same quote you got...apparently that's making the rounds because he's about the only mainstream scientist that's saying that about Gore's movie).

Scientific American's website is http://www.sciam.com/ . And if you click on their "global warming" search (see "most searched keywords" in upper right corner of page) you'll get 410 articles...all of which you have to pay for. Scientific American don't come free. You can subscribe to the paper magazine or you can subscribe to the online version but either way, you have to pay. Sorry.

*That link leads you to Exxon-Mobil's new CEO admitting that global warming is real but then saying, basically, so what. He must not have kids. Not sure why we care...we don't have kids either.
-Beth, FL

Once again we are diverting our attention away from any real matters. We can argue about some facts here and there but if you think we are not having a harmful effect on the biosphere than you are too ignorant to discuss matters with anyway.

Some people will be turned on to change their behavior and habits and others will use any excuse to ignore it and keep doing what they have always done. Do you think there is any real truth to be had in a world where opinions and extraction of specific data is sprayed about like a cat sprays the neighborhood for potential mates?

The egos and the special interest are running rampant. But there are level headed people out there trying to find a solution to problems that scientist find disturbing.

Our country turns everything into a political fight so it will keep us all afraid of what each-other will do. It is a massive and successful diversion.

I wish we could all just start leaving names of politicians and celebrities out of our conversations.

I wish we were actually discussing content and not who and what said what.
Leave the egos out of the dialogue and let’s focus on the matter at hand.
-Doug, Liberal

What amazes me is that well-meaning, intelligent conservatives so consistently forget the first axiom of any investigation: follow the money and you'll find the motive. On one side, you have a great many scientists and concerned citizens who cannot possibly think they will make money by scaring the hell out of people, especially since they have no solution. The only motive they could have is altruism, since they don't really stand to gain anything. You can, of course, say that Al Gore is wealthy and famous, which is exactly why he has no motive - once you've been VP of the United States, you're pretty much set. On the other hand, you have the industries who stand to make an enormous amount of money (they already are) by continuing the current practices of carbon pollution, most notably the fossil fuel industries. They also stand to lose a lot of money if there is carbon pollution reform. If you are trying to determine if one side or the other is lying, it doesn't take a (rocket) scientist to figure out which is most suspect.

To extend my fellow progressive thinkers fine analogy, it is as if a chronic smoker went to the doctor to complain of emphysema and the doctor says "You better quit smoking; it's making you sick." Then the cigarette company says to the smoker "Oh, no, it's not making you sick. That evil doctor is just an alarmist; besides, he's getting rich diagnosing you." So the smoker (a good conservative) says, "Hey, that's right; I can't trust that doctor. I'll just keep smoking. Besides, I like it!"
-Bud, Liberal

Sorry, there are a lot of scientists standing to make money on global warming in the form of government grants, donations, "carbon credits". There are other motivations besides money and altruism. Attention, fame, power, ego and more money. Also even people with the best of motives can begin including only the facts that prove their hypothesis--goes to ego. There are other motives besides money and money isn't always a bad motive. I doubt that you would consistently show up at a job without compensation. Anyway I disagree that the first axiom of any investigation is to follow the money. All investigations involve money.
-Ann C, AR

Yeah, the government grants, donations and carbon credits are very deep pockets compared to Exxon-Mobil. People get rich working for the government, don't you know? And Exxon-Mobil just doesn't have enough money to compete with all that.

Okay, that's just a joke too.
-Beth M, FL

That's my point, exactly. It's just too ridiculous to imply that there is an enormous global warming "lobby" that stands to win big if they're believed, just as it's too ridiculous to pretend that there isn't an enormous Big Oil lobby that will continue to win big if they are believed. Common sense, folks.
-Bill, NE

I saw an article recently which talked about all the right wing "think” tanks springing up these days. It seems there's a new one out there issuing press releases every other day, trying to grab headlines, trying to get themselves described as "non-partisan". Their funding comes HUGELY from the oil companies and all the other corporations that control the country. They pay big bucks to set up a credibility storefront. Then Fox takes their press releases, reports them as "non-partisan" news, and has their spokespeople (usually telegenic sorts) on as "experts".
-Beth Maples, FL

Arguing over Gores movie, the facts around Global Warming is all diversion. It has people arguing over egotistical garbage. We have slipped off the path. The environment has been damaged by our negligence. It is hurting our health as human beings.

Calling Hilary or Bush or Gore a moron serves no purpose other than diverting ourselves from the serious attention needed to progress forward. No matter how stupid they may be.

China is in for one hell of a catastrophe if they follow our lead in waste and consumption. They have far more people and must learn from our mistakes. We must learn from our mistakes.

We are not synthetic machines. We are organic complex systems of living relationships and we must learn to respect and become aware of how these systems interrelate and interconnect.

What a farmer or corporate head does miles away effects all of us.
-Doug, Liberal