Sure, except that he SAID eh was voting against it because it limited what what could be done in interrogations. This was a switch from earlier positions, bringing him more in line with the Republican "base" during the primaries.
I never called any scientists receiving money from energy companies frauds. Never. So I don't understand why you would state that I did. I said that public has a right to know when the information they are receiving is funded by oil companies. Especially when it is clear that these companies are funding an effort to deceive the public in order to keep their profits flowing.
Scientists receiving funding from the public are not masking this. They don't make much money. They are interest in science. But scientists receiving money from oil companies ARE hiding where their funding comes from. And front-groups like Heartland and Competitive Enterprise Institute are also masking that they are funded by the oil companies. They purport to be "independent" organizations, and then you find out they are set up by big corporations as PR machines. Why is that?
The scientists receiving money from the public are coming to their conclusions based on peer-reviewed science. When they public papers other scientists review them, and criticize them, but by and large -ALL- non-coporate scientists have come to the conclusion that we must stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere or face dire consequences.
It's funny that the scientists receiving their funding from oil companies are ALWAYS agreeing with the company position, and the peer-review process almost always has other scientists pointing out that their work is, to put it mildly, flawed.
Well, yes, I AM a believer in science, actually. Thanks for the complement.
This idea that scientists are getting "paid" to conclude that the earth is warming due to the release of CO2 into the air is an interesting spin on how science works.
Actually, science doesn't work that way. The process of getting grants to study what is happening does not depend on the conclusions. And you can be SURE that Exxon would be throwing HUGE money at science if science as concluding that their profits are not harming the planet. You can try to cast doubt on the science itself by trying to smear the motivations of scientists, but anyone who understands science also understands what you are doing.
This is sick. Sick. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
Almost no one starts smoking after they are 18. They hooked kids, and they understood that people hooked as kids have a much stronger addiction than people who get hooked older. They KNEW that tobacco was killing people and for decades they worked to get people to think it was just lawyers making it up, so they would keep smoking.
Global waring threatens millions of people, their water supplies, the ability to grow food. The oil companies are PAYING people to deny this, so they can continu to make money.
As with any information, it is important to evaluate the information on its merits. Part of that evaluation process can involve understanding the motivations of the sources. The information that Gore is presenting is backed by almost all of the scientists and governments in the world. (It is also backed by photographs of the melting polar caps and glaciers.) At the same time the information that is being presented both in the denial of global warming and in the attacks on Gore's character come almost entirely from fossil-fuel industry-funded sources.
So you tell me, does it change the arguments that Gore heads a company working to fight global warming? Al Gore has been a public servant for much of his life, from the Army to the government. He was one of the leaders in bringing attention to this problem. You can evaluate whether starting a company that works to fight global warming is a good thing or a bad thing.
While you do that, keep in mind that your ability to do that over the Internet owes a lot to Gore, who recognized its potential and in the Congress led the effort to build its backbone.
Also, when you encounter anything from an organization describing itself as a "free market think tank" you are generally looking at an industry-funded PR front-group.
"If Gore really wanted to reduce his carbon footprint, he'd use the internet to "meet" with people"
He does that.
In fact, he also made a movie that is distributed, so people can learn about what is happening without his having to be there. You should pick up the DVD, might do you some good.
"Offsetting one's "carbon footprint" is just about the stupidest thing I've heard in awhile."
Maybe you do not understand the concept. Here is what offsetting is: When you can't avoid using fossil fuels, you contribute to a fund that builds wind, solar and other alternative non-carbon energy infrastructure. So your use of fossil fuels now is OFFSET by the future non-carbon generating capacity you are helping to develop.
You have a knack for finding Exxon-funded stuff to link to. Why is that? This time you linked to something by Richard Lindzen.
Wikipedia: "According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute."
The Alaska Permanent Fund is not money from oil companies. The People of Alaska decided that they will let companies pump their oil out of the ground, for which it charges the oil companies a fee. As part of that deal they also established a permanent fund so even when their resource is pumped out they will continue to receive the benefits of that resource.
They aren't "taking money" from the oil companies, the oil companies are taking their oil, getting rich, and giving a bit back to the people whose oil it is.
How does this mean they are supposed to somehow be grateful to the oil companies? How does this make them greedy?
You seem to be saying that because it snowed a lot in North America this year, what we see when we look at satellite photos that show the poles melting is not really happening?
Do I have that right?
"Climate change" means that we will see more extreme weather, including more regional snowfall in some places. So yes, more snowfall in North America actually shows that global warming IS occurring.
Actually, I think readers deserve to know that a site offering what they purport to be a scholarly and independent analysis of science is actually funded by a corporation with an interest in distorting the facts. Especially when it turns out that the analysis offered by that site is contradicted by the scientific community.
"Doubt is our product" was the strategy used by the tobacco companies to pollute public understanding of the science about cancer. More than 100 million people have been killed by tobacco.
Now the oil and coal companies are using the same strategy - even some of the the same people and PR firms - to try to keep people from understanding what is happening with global warming.
So I think it IS important for people to know who is spreading this stuff, and why.
OK, look. We know the oil companies are pumping tens of millions into a campaign to make people think that the science is unclear, etc. But we KNOW that. People are PAID to say this stuff.
But there is no doubt about the science. All you have to do is look at a satellite photo and see for yourself that the ice caps are shrinking. Sheesh!
So are you getting paid, or are you just repeating stuff that people who ARE getting paid say? Either way, it doesn't reflect well on you.
In fact they're even using some of the same people and organizations that the tobacco compa nies used. "Doubt is our product" is the famous quote from a tobacco memo about their front-groups. They managed to put off a reckoning for decades by making people think that the science about cigarettes causing cancer was not clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush didn't fly the plane. He isn't allowed to fly, was grounded after refusing to take a drug test.
Sure, except that he SAID eh was voting against it because it limited what what could be done in interrogations. This was a switch from earlier positions, bringing him more in line with the Republican "base" during the primaries.
Social Security is not welfare. And either is veterans retirement, medical care, and disability support.
2007 federal spending on military was $625,850,000,000
"Income support" was $119,021,000,000
Interest on the Reagan/Bush debt was $429,966,000,000
You can make up your own mind about the priorities and values expressed by our budget.
A comment above says that you should look at people's actions, not their words.
McCain voted AGAINST banning torture. He says he is against torture, but when it came to a vote, he vote to allow it.
I never called any scientists receiving money from energy companies frauds. Never. So I don't understand why you would state that I did. I said that public has a right to know when the information they are receiving is funded by oil companies. Especially when it is clear that these companies are funding an effort to deceive the public in order to keep their profits flowing.
Scientists receiving funding from the public are not masking this. They don't make much money. They are interest in science. But scientists receiving money from oil companies ARE hiding where their funding comes from. And front-groups like Heartland and Competitive Enterprise Institute are also masking that they are funded by the oil companies. They purport to be "independent" organizations, and then you find out they are set up by big corporations as PR machines. Why is that?
The scientists receiving money from the public are coming to their conclusions based on peer-reviewed science. When they public papers other scientists review them, and criticize them, but by and large -ALL- non-coporate scientists have come to the conclusion that we must stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere or face dire consequences.
It's funny that the scientists receiving their funding from oil companies are ALWAYS agreeing with the company position, and the peer-review process almost always has other scientists pointing out that their work is, to put it mildly, flawed.
Well, yes, I AM a believer in science, actually. Thanks for the complement.
This idea that scientists are getting "paid" to conclude that the earth is warming due to the release of CO2 into the air is an interesting spin on how science works.
Actually, science doesn't work that way. The process of getting grants to study what is happening does not depend on the conclusions. And you can be SURE that Exxon would be throwing HUGE money at science if science as concluding that their profits are not harming the planet. You can try to cast doubt on the science itself by trying to smear the motivations of scientists, but anyone who understands science also understands what you are doing.
This is sick. Sick. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
Almost no one starts smoking after they are 18. They hooked kids, and they understood that people hooked as kids have a much stronger addiction than people who get hooked older. They KNEW that tobacco was killing people and for decades they worked to get people to think it was just lawyers making it up, so they would keep smoking.
Global waring threatens millions of people, their water supplies, the ability to grow food. The oil companies are PAYING people to deny this, so they can continu to make money.
This is just sick. Immoral.
Money is NOT the only value.
As with any information, it is important to evaluate the information on its merits. Part of that evaluation process can involve understanding the motivations of the sources. The information that Gore is presenting is backed by almost all of the scientists and governments in the world. (It is also backed by photographs of the melting polar caps and glaciers.) At the same time the information that is being presented both in the denial of global warming and in the attacks on Gore's character come almost entirely from fossil-fuel industry-funded sources.
So you tell me, does it change the arguments that Gore heads a company working to fight global warming? Al Gore has been a public servant for much of his life, from the Army to the government. He was one of the leaders in bringing attention to this problem. You can evaluate whether starting a company that works to fight global warming is a good thing or a bad thing.
While you do that, keep in mind that your ability to do that over the Internet owes a lot to Gore, who recognized its potential and in the Congress led the effort to build its backbone.
Also, this Wikipedia entry on global warming denial is very good, if you follow the links and read the footnotes.
This post has all of the information about Heartland and Exxon if you follow the links.
This report by the Union of Concerned Scientists traces Exxon funding of the global warming deniers.
Also, when you encounter anything from an organization describing itself as a "free market think tank" you are generally looking at an industry-funded PR front-group.
Here, see for yourself. No complicated science, just photos:
http://www.everybodysweather.com/Static_Media/Polar_Ice_Cap_Melter/index.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html (scroll down)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/15/arctic.nwestpssg/index.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-arctic-ice.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/arctic-20070515.html
http://geology.com/nasa/antarctic-ice-sheet-melting.shtml
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYTC13J6F_index_0.html (scroll down)
"If Gore really wanted to reduce his carbon footprint, he'd use the internet to "meet" with people"
He does that.
In fact, he also made a movie that is distributed, so people can learn about what is happening without his having to be there. You should pick up the DVD, might do you some good.
"Offsetting one's "carbon footprint" is just about the stupidest thing I've heard in awhile."
Maybe you do not understand the concept. Here is what offsetting is: When you can't avoid using fossil fuels, you contribute to a fund that builds wind, solar and other alternative non-carbon energy infrastructure. So your use of fossil fuels now is OFFSET by the future non-carbon generating capacity you are helping to develop.
Ice caps are growing? Dude, do you know what a satellite IS? It means you can look down at the earth and see for yourself what is going on.
There are SEA ROUTES opening up around the arctic for the first time.
Give us all a break, please. Go look at some of the photos, then come back and apologize.
I should have said more snowfall in North America combined with the steadily rising temperatures and shrinking ice caps.
It is not an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" it is something you can even see with your own eyes (and satellite photos).
You have a knack for finding Exxon-funded stuff to link to. Why is that? This time you linked to something by Richard Lindzen.
Wikipedia: "According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute."
You posted a link to the Heartland Institute, an Exxon-funded front group.
The Alaska Permanent Fund is not money from oil companies. The People of Alaska decided that they will let companies pump their oil out of the ground, for which it charges the oil companies a fee. As part of that deal they also established a permanent fund so even when their resource is pumped out they will continue to receive the benefits of that resource.
They aren't "taking money" from the oil companies, the oil companies are taking their oil, getting rich, and giving a bit back to the people whose oil it is.
How does this mean they are supposed to somehow be grateful to the oil companies? How does this make them greedy?
Gore's house is entirely solar and wind now, FYI.
You seem to be saying that because it snowed a lot in North America this year, what we see when we look at satellite photos that show the poles melting is not really happening?
Do I have that right?
"Climate change" means that we will see more extreme weather, including more regional snowfall in some places. So yes, more snowfall in North America actually shows that global warming IS occurring.
Actually, I think readers deserve to know that a site offering what they purport to be a scholarly and independent analysis of science is actually funded by a corporation with an interest in distorting the facts. Especially when it turns out that the analysis offered by that site is contradicted by the scientific community.
"Doubt is our product" was the strategy used by the tobacco companies to pollute public understanding of the science about cancer. More than 100 million people have been killed by tobacco.
Now the oil and coal companies are using the same strategy - even some of the the same people and PR firms - to try to keep people from understanding what is happening with global warming.
So I think it IS important for people to know who is spreading this stuff, and why.
"attack the group"
I just pointed out that you were linking to an Exxon-funded front-group, so people can evaluate what they are seeing.
You are linking to a site that is funded by Exxon, in case you didn't know.
OK, look. We know the oil companies are pumping tens of millions into a campaign to make people think that the science is unclear, etc. But we KNOW that. People are PAID to say this stuff.
But there is no doubt about the science. All you have to do is look at a satellite photo and see for yourself that the ice caps are shrinking. Sheesh!
So are you getting paid, or are you just repeating stuff that people who ARE getting paid say? Either way, it doesn't reflect well on you.
In fact they're even using some of the same people and organizations that the tobacco compa nies used. "Doubt is our product" is the famous quote from a tobacco memo about their front-groups. They managed to put off a reckoning for decades by making people think that the science about cigarettes causing cancer was not clear.