Great Satan,

There are positive advancements occuring on an ongoing basis. I do not see things as being bleak at all. As a matter of fact, I see the global warming fear mongering for nuclear power movement falling on it’s face in complete failure.

Elitist NIMBYs won’t be able to prevent wind power from going forward, solar will provide opportunities for electrification in off grid areas, wave generation may add significantly to base capacity, perhaps with downward redistribution of resources and expanded educational opportunities for women, population pressure may even decline. Of course all of this will require political power to change hands. I of course can’t say how we achieve that, certainly not on the internet.

Yes, we could do with a different attitude toward the Earth AND it’s creatures. But fomenting hysteria will only create the conditions for the nuclear scheme to go forward. It’s similar to the global war on terror.

I very much agree that the primary focus must be on a change in the mentality of the masses. So long as we are gluttonous convenience junkies, willing to forsake the welfare of the world in our self-serving apathy, we will continue to empower the most nefarious. In the end is the ignorant who empower the tyrants more than the tyrants who enslave the ignorant. Therefore the ignorant sloth and gluttony of the masses IS the tyranny.
Your rant, though possibly sarcastic, has validity. Will the masses of humanity be stirred from their slumber, will their eyes ever look up from the food trough until the consequences of their actions are firmly imprinted upon the racial memory? Is evolution possible without global cataclysm? Probably not. 
However, I do not exclude the hope of working on provincial solutions within the present situation. As Gandalf said, “There are forces at work here besides those of evil.”
Oh and you object to the name, associating it with “embodiment of evil” rather than some sarcastic afront to ideological bigotry. Do you worship that malefic little desert djini, the so-called “God of Abraham?”

So then, Atheo. You have firmly and incontrovertibly established that everything Mr. Gore has ever said is 100% false and that his motives are likewise 100% evil. We all know the “man is bad,” by now. What is your plan, on the constructive side? What solutions do you propose?

P.S. ...sorry again Ardee! I meant to say that “Miriam and Atheo are are now espousing that we work on environmental solutions after we accomplish the great revolution.” You must really hate my guts by now.

Great Satan,

Al Gore can’t be persuaded to do right, he’s a treasonous habitual felon. You may as well mail your opinions to GWB.

Of course we could be saying a lot of this stuff to Al instead of each other…
Here is the address of Al Gore’s office in Nashville.

2100 West End Avenue Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

Great Satan,

“A couple of links regarding Al Gore and Nuclear Energy.

http://www.nirs.org/press/11-13-2000/1”

My, my, fool me once…

Check the date on that statement, after he conceded the election he stated that we need to reduce our reliance on nuclear. Ever wonder if he would have made the same statement if he had been selected? Come on.

Great Satan,

You got that backwards. It was Al Queda working for the Clinton/Gore Administration, not the other way around. I refer to Bosnia, and yes it’s documented.

“rich people would be able to afford to buy gas when poor folks can’t. So what. There are more poor folks than rich folks, which means lots less driving in general. Poor folks will get more exercise”

Hey, you need to check your attitude because there’s alot more of them.

“According to Al Gore, the Carbon Tax is to be… Growing green business would have an edge”

No serious analysis anticipates this outcome, there will be NO other significant beneficiary than the nuclear industry. Face it, at this point renewables won’t compete with nuclear, and nuclear has vatious levels of subsidies, not the least of which is dumping their waste on millions of future generations. Yes, it is evil.

A couple of links regarding Al Gore and Nuclear Energy.

http://www.nirs.org/press/11-13-2000/1

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/002012.html

Okay, in one post, Atheo tells Ardee, “Cheer up Ardee, it’s just an attempt at control through fear. Don’t be controlled.”
Then, in a subsequent post Atheo says to Ardee, “I guess that you will just have to follow Gore into eternal irradiated oblivion.”
I suppose next we will hear that Al Gore is really working for Al Qaeda.

Both Miriam and Ardee are now espousing that we work on environmental solutions after we accomplish the great revolution. Right. In other words, ideology before practicality.
Of course corporate power can easily infiltrate and twist just about anything to their advantage. “If you can’t beat them, buy them,” is their motto. Gore treads on very shaky ground indeed. He is “working inside the system.” He is a politician. He is rich. He is making deals with the devil, to be sure. But i don’t think he’s the devil himself.
I don’t think the carbon tax is a nefarious scheme in itself. It would make it so rich people would be able to afford to buy gas when poor folks can’t. So what. There are more poor folks than rich folks, which means lots less driving in general. Poor folks will get more exercise, ride bikes and talk to each other on the bus, while the rich will lose their shit and attrify in their SUVs.
BTW, I am one of the poor folks. I gave up on owning a vehicle. I borrow one when needed, catch rides, ride a bike, do a lot of walking, and ride the bus. No big deal.
But, I digress. According to Al Gore, the Carbon Tax is to be coupled with the removal of the pay roll tax, that Reaganomic assault upon small business growth. Oil and coal industries would suffer. Growing green business would have an edge. Likewise, the larger industries would be corralled into decreasing carbon.
The fact that the Nuclear biz will also have an edge must be addressed and combated. We can call Gore on this without railing against the entire movement. He is a politician. He may be influenced by Nuclear lobby, but he also wants popularity.
Gore points out numerous problems with nuclear power. He may just be politicking and down playing the role the Nukers are to play, but he doesn’t paint a picture that nuclear energy is some great hope for the environment.

Ardee,

I wish I had time to address your last point in a thorough manner but I have to run down to the Whole Foods store in my Prius to pick up some organic mangos and New Zealand blueberries to serve at my 4500 sq. ft. green house. Besides, Iv’e got that Madona tune stuck in my mind and can’t concentrate.

Mariam,

You make excellent points. How can we expect progress with the same power configuration that has given us GMOs, irradiated foods, phony pharmaceuticals, nuclear aggression, genocide, etc…
They have openly promised that nuclear power is the only solution they offer for global warming. Why would anyone close their eyes and pretend that these same people who have had all the power to promote renewable energy and haven’t, will suddenly provide it? Obviously political change must preceed addressing global warming.

Ardee,

I guess that you will just have to follow Gore into eternal irradiated oblivion. For me it’s just too naive to expect “corporations to make investments in the health of our planet”. Don’t we have to achieve a political change first?

So at last we come to the kernel. Atheo comes firmly down on the global warming as myth issue. I just knew it would come to this. The real fact at the heart of his postings are, as he clearly noted:

Cheer up Ardee, it’s just an attempt at control through fear. Don’t be controlled.

There are fears and there are fears, Atheo. One such fear is that corporations might actually have to make investments in the health of our planet, thus endangering that precious bottom line. We certainly cannot have that now can we?

As I have noted, when two such as Mariam and Atheo contribute only negativity, choose to personally disparage the leading proponent in the fight to curb out of control emissions leading to worsening living conditions for all life on the planet, it is past time to think long and hard as to why......Following the money is always a great idea.

I said it once and Ill say it again, then I will leave this thread to those who love being swindled; unless and until Atheo and Mariam post something positive, something creative in opposition to the course Gore is taking I will continue to believe Albert and be very suspicious of these two.

Atheo and Miriam
I agree about ethanol. Besides it doesn’t even burn very clean.
Check out this article of aglae based biodiesel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_pro duction

Cheer up Ardee, it’s just an attempt at control through fear. Don’t be controlled.

Criticizing the IPCC Consensus:

I am always happy to be in the minority. Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
– Freeman Dyson

The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the prevalence of fudge factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the existence of El Niño. Since El Niño is a major feature of observed climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.
– Freeman Dyson

That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapor response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation — which has a cooling effect…. We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.
– Ian Clark

Our team… has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction in cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. …most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”
– Henrik Svensmark

I’m not saying the warming doesn’t cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I’m saying that the problems are being greatly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the ocean.
– Freeman Dyson

Well Miriam and Atheo, at least, as we sink beneath the waves of a rising sea, or die of soaring temperatures, you can have the satisfaction of having put the purity of your idealism before saving the planet.......of course we are all of us dead....oh well. Come to think of it, those suffering masses about which you speak so well are all dead too.

Do I disagree with much of the criticisms, frankly I do not. Do I see an alternative , a fairer way to deal with a pressing and urgent problem proposed by either of you, sorry nope. So , given a choice between inaction and only partially acceptable action Im going with action.....if Gore gets even richer, well thats the system for you, if the temperature is reduced a degree or two, well thats a good thing.

The Green Imposter
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

The official version of the political battles over the environment in the late 1990s goes something like this:

As the Republican Visigoths swept into control of the 104th Congress, in January of 1995, trembling greens predicted that not an old-growth tree, not an endangered species would be spared. The Republicans’ threats were terrible to behold. They proposed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. They vowed to establish a commission to shut down several national parks; to relax standards on the production and disposal of toxic waste; to turn over enforcement of clean water and air standards to the states. They uttered fearsome threats against the Endangered Species Act. They boasted of plans to double the amount of logging in the National Forests.

Then, the official myth goes on, the president, Gore and the national greens fought off the Visigoths.

American politics thrives on simple legends of virtue combating vice. As regards the environment, the Republican ultras did not carry all before them. They didn’t need to. Clinton and Gore had already done most of the dirty work themselves. The real story begins back in the early days of the administration, when Clinton and Gore had what might be called an environmental mandate and a Democratic Congress to help them move through major initiatives. But the initiatives never happened. Instead, those early years were marked by a series of retreats, reversals and betrayals that prompted David Brower, the grand old man of American environmentalism, the arch druid himself, to conclude that “Gore and Clinton had done more harm to the environment than Reagan and Bush combined.”

The first environmental promise Al Gore made in the 1992 campaign, he soon broke. It involved the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio, built on a floodplain near the Ohio River. The plant, one of the largest of its kind in the world, was scheduled to burn 70,000 tons of hazardous waste a year in a spot only 350 feet from the nearest house. A few hundred yards away is East Elementary School, which sits on a ridge nearly eye-level with the top of the smokestack.

On July 19, 1992, Gore gave one of his first campaign speeches on the environment, across the river from the incinerator site, in Weirton, West Virginia, hammering the Bush Administration for its plans to give the toxic waste burner a federal air permit. “The very idea is just unbelievable to me”, Gore said. “I’ll tell you this, a Clinton-Gore Administration is going to give you an environmental presidency to deal with these problems. We’ll be on your side for a change.” Clinton made similar pronouncements on his swing through the Buckeye State.

Shortly after the election, Gore assured neighbors of the incinerator that he hadn’t forgotten about them. “Serious questions concerning the safety of the East Liverpool, Ohio, hazardous waste incinerator must be answered before the plant may begin operation”, Gore wrote. “The new Clinton/Gore administration will not issue the plant a test burn permit until all questions concerning compliance with the plant have been answered.”

But that never happened. Instead, the EPA quietly granted the WTI facility its test burn permit. The tests failed, twice. In one, the incinerator eradicated only 7 percent of the mercury found in the waste, when it was supposed to burn away 99.9 percent. A few weeks later the EPA granted WTI a commercial permit anyway. They didn’t tell the public about the failed tests until afterward…

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03172007.html

#85399 by Mariam Russell
It is refreshing to see a response which is beyond the simple “yea” or “nay”, “black” or “white”, and “with us” or “against us” character so frequent here.
Of course, with Miriam’s response, I am likewise in agreement sometimes and not at other times, though I am principally in agreement. I especially want to join in on the emphasis upon mad consumerism, and the self governance of the citizen. Simple. Consider every dollar a vote. 
I still don’t understand the point against biofuel, particularly biodiesel. Are you against all together or just as a primary solution?

As I drove from Fremont,Ca. to Petaluma and Santa Rosa this morning I thought about the nature of Atheos’ comments regarding my response. I then checked my post to see if I had indeed avoided the discussion as he indicated. I did not. I answered his objections directly and I repeat it now:

I frankly dont give a shit what Gore did umpty umpt years ago, but I do applaud what he is doing now at this moment. Those who question his motives are certainly free to do so, those who claim he is only in it for personal gain can scream it from the rooftops. Who the hell else is stepping up the plate on this important issue?

Regardless of how one feels about the carbon credit scheme, or about ethanol production at least the subject is at the fore at long last. Rather than being buried or coopted by oil and coal companies we will see many folks engaging in the debate and isnt this what is needed? Unless one feels that global warming is a myth, or that ones portfolio will be hurt ......

Now Athios might claim all he wants that he is inside the head of Al Gore and knows exactly what Gore hopes to gain by championing the cause of a solution to global warming, I doubt many others, less agendised others perhaps, would make the same claim.

I would again reiterate that speaking to the solutions proposed by Gore is one thing, and Athios has done this rather well in fact, but assassinating the character and impuning the motives of the man is quite another kettle of fish, real, real smelly fish.

M<ost know that the esteemed senior Senator Byrd was a Klu Klux Klan proponent very early in his life, yet does one raise this as a significant issue in what he attempts to accomplish now? Justice Warren was a staunch conservative prior to his ascent to the Supreme Court. As Chief Justice he presided over some of the most famous landmark decisions that helped to move this nation forward. What would be served by rehashing his conservative past in relation to his later decisions?

I say again, besmirching a man, even if what Athios claims is true about that mans past, and I do not claim yea or nay about what was written about that past, rather than discussion his present efforts serves what purpose? Only to perhaps disclose a hidden agenda, nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Gee Atheo, sounds like I hit too close to home, huh?

Ardee in one post questions “attacking the messenger”
and engages in the same:

“The political arena has become a different place since Karl Rove instituted the ‘ ignore the message personally attack the messenger’ style”

“or that ones portfolio will be hurt”

In fact, Ardee has no basis for suggesting that any commenter’s “portfolio will be hurt”, but he is desperate to avoid dealing with the issues. The fact is that Gore is the primary public promoter of man caused global warming and he also has a solid 30 year history of undermining environmentalism and shilling for corporate interests, especially the nuclear lobby.

The political arena has become a different place since Karl Rove instituted the ‘ ignore the message personally attack the messenger’ style used so well by the Limbaughs and such.

I frankly dont give a shit what Gore did umpty umpt years ago, but I do applaud what he is doing now at this moment. Those who question his motives are certainly free to do so, those who claim he is only in it for personal gain can scream it from the rooftops. Who the hell else is stepping up the plate on this important issue?

Regardless of how one feels about the carbon credit scheme, or about ethanol production at least the subject is at the fore at long last. Rather than being buried or coopted by oil and coal companies we will see many folks engaging in the debate and isnt this what is needed? Unless one feels that global warming is a myth, or that ones portfolio will be hurt ......

#85176 by great_satan on 7/08 at 3:32 pm
(106 comments total)

#85172 by ardee
Sorry, that came off like an insult. I just meant it should be obvious to those whom you were criticizing. I was about to post the same, then I read your post.

OK so my face is red. I guess Im a bit touchy today, and there are some on this site who have made me that way. Please ignore the twenty seven insulting retorts I posted about you (kidding)......

Al Gore, the Origins of a Hypocrite
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

...in Gore’s supposed devotion to the environment there has always been a vast rift between stirring proclamation and legislative reality. Back in the late 1970s two of the hottest environmental battles concerned the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and the Tellico Dam, both within the purview of the TVA. As planned, the Clinch River reactor not only was a $3 billion boondoggle of the first water but was also destabilizing in terms of the arms race, since it was scheduled to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The Congressional battle over the planned reactor stretched from the mid-1970s to 1983, when, amid growing national disquiet about nuclear power, it went down to defeat.

Gore was a fanatic defender of the reactor, the most ardent of all in the Tennessee House delegation. When the Republicans briefly captured the Senate in 1981 the senior senator from Tennessee, Howard Baker, became majority leader and made protection of the Clinch River project one of his prime tasks. He and Gore kept the fight going until the end.

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03032007.html

==========
Jeffrey St. Clair: The Green ImposterGlory Boy and the Snail Darter: Al Gore, the Origins of a Hypocrite ..... The first environmental promise Al Gore made in the 1992 campaign, he soon broke. ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03172007.html

David Lindorff: Al Gore’s Judas KissIsn’t this the same Al Gore who so ardently backed and continues to back President Clinton’s crooked NAAFTA job destruction treaty? ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12102003.html

Gore, our savior.

Great Satan,

I actually can pull your corn syrup point back to the subject at hand. In both corn syrup and ethanol, the intent is to deprive specific nations of their export markets. With corn syrup it was Cuba and it’s embargoed cane sugar. With ethanol it’s Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. The intent is to reduce global “dependence” on these nations, so as to allow more wars of aggression.

There are more than two sides to this complex task, and there are certainly going to be fits and starts, dead ends and u-turns involved before we get it right.

Of course those who are currently in power are going to use every effort to remain so, retarding progress in some cases, its the system under which we live and capitalism at its least efficient.

One good thing to come out of Gore’s involvement and those in the entertainment industry is the raising of the consciousness of all peoples to this issue. This may result in taking the decision making out of the hands of those who try to turn the issue to maximise profit rather than minimize pollution.

Im sorry ,Satan, if my posts bore you, we are all applauding your obviously massive intellect so just ignore my efforts, thanks much.

#85172 by ardee
Sorry, that came off like an insult. I just meant it should be obvious to those whom you were criticizing. I was about to post the same, then I read your post.

#85169 by atheo
plus among renewable fuels, ethonol is the weakest in terms of being environmnetally sound. It’s damned close to oil. Biodiesel is much cleaner and may be produced from all sorts of biproduct.
But corn syrup! That crap is in EVERYTHING. Its one of the major contributors to obesity, especially in kids. The average American consumes 63 pounds per year! How much midwest land is devoted its production? I’ve tried to find the stats but no luck so far.

#85028 by great_satan on 7/08 at 8:40 am
(104 comments total)

#85019 by ardee
Thank you for stating the obvious.

....
You are welcome, now can you guess which obvious finger I am holding up?

Great Satan,

Yes, banning beef would more effective than every other measure combined. Obviously there is another motive behind the actions; regressive taxation, artificial scarcity, and other forms of economic domination.
No, to date there is no socially or environmentally acceptable method of producing ethanol. Even switchgrass (which is a possibility under development) would compete with food crops for acreage.

#85150 by atheo
This is just another logical fallacy. We have to stop producing ethanol to feed the world? As if there are no options.
I know it relies on sugars in the grains or whatever, but does ethanol require the food quality as pect of the grains and such? Could ethanol be produced entirely from byproducts, bad crops and so forth? 
What if we keep the ethanol and get rid of CORN SYRUP?
Oh yes, and six pounds of corn to produce one pound of beef! Ban the beef industry and feed the world.

The fight for the world’s food. Population is growing. Supply is falling. Prices are rising. What will be the cost to the planet’s poorest?

By Daniel Howden
Published: 23 June 2007

...In the past 12 months the global corn price has doubled. The constant aim of agriculture is to produce enough food to carry us over to the next harvest. In six of the past seven years, we have used more grain worldwide than we have produced. As a result world grain reserves - or carryover stocks - have dwindled to 57 days. This is the lowest level of grain reserves in 34 years.

The reason for the price surge is the wholesale diversion of grain crops into the production of ethanol. Thirty per cent of next year’s grain harvest in the US will go straight to an ethanol distillery. As the US supplies more than two-thirds of the world’s grain imports this unprecedented move will affect food prices everywhere. In Europe farmers are switching en masse to fuel crops to meet the EU requirement that bio-fuels account for 20 per cent of the energy mix.

Ethanol is almost universally popular with politicians as it allows them to tell voters to keep on motoring, while bio-fuels will fix the problem of harmful greenhouse gas emissions. But bio-fuels are not a green panacea, as the influential economist Lester Brown from the Earth Policy Institute explained in a briefing to the US Senate last week. He said: “The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world’s 2 billion poorest people.”

In the developed world this could mean a change of lifestyle. Elsewhere it could cost lives. Soaring food prices have already sparked riots in poor countries that depend on grain imports. More will follow. After decades of decline in the number of starving people worldwide the numbers are starting to rise. The UN lists 34 countries as needing food aid. Since feeding programmes tend to have fixed budgets, a doubling in the price of grain halves food aid.

Anger boiled over this week as Jean Ziegler, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, accused the US and EU of “total hypocrisy” for promoting ethanol production in order to reduce their dependence on imported oil. He said producing ethanol instead of food would condemn hundreds of thousands of people to death from hunger.

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article2697804.ece

#85132 by atheo
Please elaborate.

Great Satan,

Try to include the perspective of the third world in your views. You may be surprised at the outcome.

#85052 by atheo
Regarding “fear mongering”, that is a generalization. Of course there is fear mongering, like our terrorist situation. About 50,000 people world wide have dies from terrorism since 1968. There are many greater dangers in the world, yet it is now our priority.
But there may be certain things that require some urgency. Global Warming would indeed be one of them. The wake up call that our nation is going fascist might be another.

“It would be naive to expect this outcome from the present power structure.”

Well there we have it, don’t we. It is pretty much naive to believe we can get from our many present day “A” problems to any real “B” solutions with our current power structure.
The corrosive compromises.
Worst of all, the current power structure is supported by the current mind set. Making radical progress is basically impossible in a democracy populated by vast numbers of ignorant consumers. Worse still is that its a lot easier to “dumb down” than it is to “smart up,” and at this point the corrupt elite controls the media and the educational system.
Bucky Fuller noted that we have all the solutions necessary, it is just a matter of changing the mind set to allow them to be enacted. Oh, is that all we need to do Bucky?

@ Great Satan

Some of your goals are commendable, however you should not try to acheive them through fear mongering. One day carbon based fuels will be replaced by renewables, until they can compete though, it is elitist to mandate them or subsidize them through taxation. You state: “Coal, gas and nuclear energy must rapidly be replaced by a non-centralized “green” power grid.”

It would be naive to expect this outcome from the present power structure. The outcome in store IS nuclear power plants and regressive taxation.

You can hardly say my arguments are weak, when you make statements like.. “the outcome of the carbon taxes will be SUVs for the elite driven on privatized exclusive toll roads or congestion fee districts.”...without explaining how you get from A to B in this inference.
Keep in mind that Gore’s recommendation is that the coal tax should be balanced by repealing the payroll tax, meaning small businesses can pay more and grow more easily.

I say you sound like a spokesperson, because your argument seems to point to leaving the power industry just as it is, with no modification as it is. Therefore, you words serve those presently making the cash. But I don’t want the argument to degenerate and digress.

My opinion is that the present solutions are less than adequate. They are the product of corrosive compromise which is seemingly inherent to mass media politics.
Real solutions require a complete revamp of how we live i many ways.
Deforestation must come to a hault.
Coal, gas and nuclear energy must rapidly be replaced by a non-centralized “green” power grid.
The food production and distribution system must merge with the production of renewable fuels. As this system becomes streamlined and affordable, the convential oil industry should be dismantled.
The public transportation systems should be expanded vastly and refined enormously.
Automobile advertising should be banned entirely.  The big car as status symbol psychology should be combated on all levels.
As the mass transit systems and alternative fuels systems grow, gasoline and coal should be taxed to the point of non-affordablility, while tax breaks and bonuses should be given to cyclists, users of public transportation and so forth.
The beef industry should be banned or trimmed down to a very limited level. The soy industry should likewise merge with the renewable fuel industry.
Suburban sprawl must come to a hault. Commuting from suburbs to city could be greatly lessened by transferring most officework to stay at home internet work. The abandoned office buildings could be converted into affordable urban housing.

The benefits of such would exceed mere energy concerns. People would be healthier through walking and biking. People would actually interact, rather than being continually insulated in their automobiles, suburban boxes, and cubicles.

Peter F. Drucker, writer and Habsburg empire factotum, “describes in his book [Post Capitalist Society, published in 1993] the worldwide trends toward globalization that were evident back then—the creation and empowerment of transnational organizations and institutions, international environmental goals regarding carbon dioxide and agreements to fight terrorism long before 9/11.” In short, none of this is new or should it be surprising, as the globalists have planned to reduce us to grinding peonage for some time now. Moreover, they have planned for some time to exploit the global warming scam to get us all working on the slave plantation, making sure to condition us first with a bit of terrorism.

Of course, in the brave new world envisioned by the decadent criminal elite, mere terrorism—raving jihadists, we are told ad nauseam, who want to dirty nuke our cities because they hate our freedom to shop—will pale in comparison to the dire scenarios of melting ice caps, flooded coastal cities, aberrant weather patterns, a Katrina catastrophe or worse every other week, and wars and rumors of wars based on the prospect of diminishing resources, including “peak oil,” all of it designed to prepare us for a dystopian future of slave labor down on the transnational corporate plantation.

Source: Kurt Nimmo

Great Satan,

You recommend bicycles and mass transit, but the outcome of the carbon taxes will be SUVs for the elite driven on privatized exclusive toll roads or congestion fee districts. The masses will be limited to deprivation and regressive taxation.

So far, we have:

1) mandated ethanol, which has driven up the price of food while worsening urban polution.

2) mandated CFL lighting, which results in greater mercury polution than use of conventional bulbs.

3) a global resurgence in uranium mining

How much further down this road to “progress” do you want to go?

You state: “If anyone here sounds like the spokesperson for the power companies, it’s you.”

What is the point of the baseless ad hominem attacks?
It simply shows that your position is too weak to argue.

#85026 by atheo
“ GB asks: “What do you get out of it?
“Well GB, I suppose I could ask if you work for Siemens or G.E. Is that constructive?”

If anyone here sounds like the spokesperson for the power companies, it’s you.

“How would you propose providing mobility, heat, and industrial energy for ALL? Renewables won’t do it. Nuclear is irresponsible.”
Actually renewables will do it. It just requires a restructuring of the entire energy producing industry. Those who have invested all in the way it is, will lode out. Those with real innovation will profit.
Regarding the billions you claim to represent, the right to necessary amount of energy is of course viable. You confuse this with the right to waste as much as we want. Uh, bicycles, highly developed public transportation systems, carpools.
Oh yes. The global warming movement is meaningless without a global ban on the beef industry.

#85019 by ardee
Thank you for stating the obvious.

#84844 by atheo
Yes, the gore plan does include increase in Nuclear power, but he doesn’t promote it any great solution.
Aside from the basic corrosive effect of feeling he needs to compromise to gain the support of republicans and power companies in order to “legitimize” his campaign on the scale upon which it is functioning, what evidence is there that Mr. Gore is acting primarily to promote Nuclear Energy?
I have read a bit and he does acknowledge that Nuclear power will play some role. I agree that this is a dangerous bargain. i likewise agree that we shouldn’t let the emphasis on Greenhouse effect undermine the campaign against Nuclear power. If Chernobyl wasn’t a friggen wake up call, then what does the world need? (We haven’t heard the last of that little booboo, not by far.)
However, your diatribe seems to espouse a firm knowledge that Greenhouse effect renders no threat whatsoever. It seems a logical falacy prevalent in the SUV generation who opposes the whole anti-global warming movement that the likelihood in some inaccuracy of the largely agreed upon predictions by the scientific community is firm proof that there is no danger whatsoever.

Ardee asks: “How on earth does one travel?”

GB states: “ they have to use the current available means of transportation.”

This is the point. The world’s billions all equally deserve mobility, yet the elitists are pushing carbon taxes or similar schemes which will deprive billions of their right to their share of the earths energy resources. It’s all about control and manipulation through fear for private gain and perpetuation of elite domination.

How would you propose providing mobility, heat, and industrial energy for ALL? Renewables won’t do it. Nuclear is irresponsible.

GB asks: “What do you get out of it?”

Well GB, I suppose I could ask if you work for Siemens or G.E. Is that constructive?

Of all the criticisms of those who think global warming a real danger, those who attempt to do something about it, the citing of the use of jets and the ownership of automobiles by those who participate in such consciousness raising endeavors are the most silly.

How on earth does one travel? Why on earth can you not use the brains given you to post something less juvenile and more pertinent? These people make their money giving performances, just as business men and women fly many times a year to do business.

It might ( or might not) interest you to know that those who will perform will do so at venues closest to their homes, Madonna in London, Bon Jovi in New York. To pin your posts on the fact that Al Gore owns large homes, or that he travels on jet aircraft is an expose, not of Gore, but of the weakness of your own stances.

UK Daily Mail:

No doubt to rapturous applause, Madonna will call for mass global change to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle ‘climate crisis’.

For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S…

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: “a massive, hypocritical fraud”.
Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it ‘private jets for climate change’…

Moreover, the pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote - with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world.
Yet, Gore is touting the concerts as ‘carbon neutral’. So how can that be?

Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.

...an audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth, reveals that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets billow thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes, according to John Buckley.
Remember, the average Briton produces just ten tonnes.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has learnt that Bon Jovi left the UK this week to travel back by private jet to the U.S. to perform at the New York stadium for the American leg of Live Earth.

Two other acts have already been criticised for being paid to promote fuel-guzzling cars. John Legend is featured in a Lexus advert, while Sheryl Crow’s hit Everyday Is A Winding Road is used to sell Subaru 4WDs.

Such is the level of disquiet felt about Live Earth in New Zealand, that a pressure group called the Climaction Coalition, is urging people to protest against it on July 7. Radiohead, who are pioneers in eco-friendly performing, have refused to appear. Of course, Live Earth is doing its utmost to ensure the event is ‘green’ in appearance at least - stars will be ferried between the stage and dressing room by energy-efficient Smart Cars and biodiesel fuelled Mercedes…

The organisers tried to introduce re-usable cups for interval refreshments, but found that - like many green strategies - this was not practical on such a huge scale.

Plans to ask the British public to turn off their electrical appliances during the Live Earth broadcast were scuppered when the National Grid pointed out that as everyone switched on again, a giant power surge could cripple the country.

So just how does Gore claim that Live Earth will be carbon neutral? He does so by convenient use of ‘carbon offsetting’ - a trendy new method of absolving yourself of guilt.

Carbon-offsetting is, it turns out, how celebrities square green issues with their extravagant lifestyles and use of private jets.

Jon Bon Jovi has said: “We wrote a cheque, we took care of our footprint and raised awareness, blah blah blah.”

Great Satan,

Gore has been promoting nuclear plants for over a quarter century now. If he claims otherwise it is disengenuous. Yes, it is also about creating nuclear material for the new generation of U.S. weopons. Without the new plants, the U.S. supply of enriched uranium is not assured. This whole movement serves the MIC. Yes, they do oppose nuclear plants in nations that they don’t dominate.

#84845 by atheo
Just because the Nuke companies want to exploit the global warming concerns doesn’t mean that global warming is a set up by the Nukers.
Gore was confronted with this scenario by a few senators in his time before the panel a few months back.
First of all he supports a non-centralized network of smaller green energy generators.
Second he opposes the next wave of Nuclear energy and states that since it is a global concern and almost every non-proliferation issue is tied with the building of a nuclear plant, that Nuclear energy is an impractical solution.
So, perhaps rather than clinging to the way things are, (nonstop deforestation with increased cattle and use of fossil fuels) why not put your energy into supporting the non-centralized green grid.

Analysis: Why Whitman wants nuclear power

By BEN LANDO

UPI - Former New Jersey governor and federal environmental chief Christine Todd Whitman is heading one of a growing number of coalitions urging the United States to keep—and increase—nuclear energy as part of its energy mix. She’s touring the country with the new mantra that nuclear power is safer and more efficient than ever before—and, thanks to federal subsidies and potential climate-change legislation, economically competitive…

“It’s not going to be the answer for everything and the be-all-end-all only form of power,” she said. “But if you care about climate change and you care about air quality, nuclear power is really the only form of base power that doesn’t produce some of the regulated emissions and doesn’t contribute to global climate change.”

Whitman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2001 to 2003 after serving seven years as New Jersey governor, is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, CASEnergy. The organization, also co-chaired by activist-turned-capitalist Patrick Moore—co-founder and ex-member of Greenpeace—has launched a public relations and education blitz to convince the nation “how nuclear power can contribute to America’s energy security and economic growth,” according to its Web site.

The goal, Whitman said, is “getting people to start to talk about this and think about this ... try to build the public support for this kind of power.”

Accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, cost overruns during the last buildup, and the once low and stable price of natural gas led to the three-decade freeze of the U.S. nuclear industry.

But energy legislation in the 1990s and two years ago streamlined the licensing process and gave the industry subsidies to grow.

The United States hasn’t licensed a new nuclear plant since 1978, so coal and natural gas combined have a majority stake in electricity production. The growing clamor to address climate change has led some states, and possibly in the future the federal government, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. That wouldn’t affect nuclear’s pricing but could make it more competitive with polluters like coal, a main target of such measures.

As the global industry prepares to increase the number of nuclear plants, supporters in this country have become more visible, and CASE is only one of the players.

“It seems like new and varied groups are coming out in support of nuclear energy just about every week,” said Scott Peterson, vice president of communications for the Nuclear Energy Institute and sole funder of the CASE Coalition. The latest, Third Way, a center-left think tank, endorsed nuclear power last week…

Nuclear technology has advanced over the years, bolstering plants against accidents and attacks—though not foolproof if the human hand either errs or seeks violence—and enabling more efficient electricity production. And the United States is far from an answer for storing or disposing nuclear waste…

“None of the questions have been answered,” Paul Gunter said of the nuclear opposition’s concerns. “It’s fair to say: ‘Let’s take another look.’ But when you look, nothing has really changed.”

Whitman says she thinks other energy sources are important—though she doubts the role renewables can play and says coal needs to be cleaned up but is too big a player now to go away—in weaning the country from the foreign oil that makes up 60 percent of U.S. consumption.

======

Yes, this is the very same liar who assured us that the air was safe at ground zero on 9/11.

Louise,

“I for one welcome any action that will lead to the reduction of poison in our rivers, lakes, oceans and the air we breath.”

I am in total agreement. This is why I think it’s so important to oppose carbon caps/trading or carbon taxes, both of which will ONLY serve to make nuclear poison competitive with non-radioactive energy. We are getting the biggest bait and switch sales pitch ever concieved. We must protect the environment by defending against the hysteria being pushed to promote a new generation of nuclear plants that will poison the Earth for the rest of it’s projected existence.

#84838 by Louise
It’s true that statespersons are the anomalies and politicians the norm throughout our history. The real movers have generally been those leaders who represent the will of the people and can rally the masses to light a big old fire under the politicians asses. Its the only way the do anything for the populace.

Whether or not you happen to believe global warming is man made or just another cycle, I think we can all agree on one thing.

Pollutants in the air, earth and water make people sick! Never mind what they do to everything else!

I for one welcome any action that will lead to the reduction of poison in our rivers, lakes, oceans and the air we breath.
Even if it’s labeled something else.

Sincerely hope Gore doesn’t run for president. He’s one heck of an activist!
Besides we have plenty of activists regularly running for president already.

I say the smart people should stay out of politics and work on solving problems the dumb people who get elected create!

#84804 by atheo
I agree.
One thing that can definitely be forecast is that there are key factors not accounted for in the forecast.
One can also forecast that academicians can argue about anything like this indefinitely.
One can also forecast that by applying any cause one will produce a proportionate effect, so the idea that no change will occur is right out.
The problem is there is a lot more than $20,000 and academic ego riding on the wager.
Also there is the possibility that the mistake will be in a gross underestimation of the effects.

...when scientists stop doing science and start making forecasts, they are engaging in a very different form of intellectual activity, one at which they’re not very good.

A lot of people assume that if you accept that human-created carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere, then it is almost inevitable that a number of bad climate changes will occur in coming decades, rising temperatures being the most important. However, the links between the two propositions are many and long, and involve a large number of facts and theories about how climate works. In other words, the orthodoxy involves a lot of complicated forecasts. The new critics say the processes by which these forecasts have been made are so poor we can’t trust the results.

Professor Scott Armstrong is at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr Kesten Green is with the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University. They’re experts in forecasting techniques. (Many people are unaware that forecasting is a subject with many academic experts and a body of research going back to the 1930s. The website forecastingprinciples.com attracts more than 200,000 visitors a year.) Their paper is Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts. It was written for the 27th Annual International Symposium on Forecasting.

Armstrong and Green looked at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group 1 report from earlier this year. This is the major source for the orthodoxy.

They focused on chapter eight, which sets out the methodology used for the forecasts in the report. They found that the panel, despite its immense assembly of scientific talent, appeared to have no idea of how to make a reliable forecast. Although the chapter has 788 references, none relates to forecasting methodology.

Armstrong and Green rated the methodology used by the panel against 89 principles of good forecasting derived from years of research. They found that the panel report breached 72 of those principles. They concluded that the forecasts the weather was likely to change in many negative ways were worthless.

What are some of the main principles of forecasting? One involves the notion, so popular among orthodoxy advocates, of consensus. While consensus might say something about testable scientific theories, it says nothing about forecasts.

Armstrong and Green say: “Agreement among experts is weakly related to accuracy. This is especially true when the experts communicate with one another and when they work together to solve problems, as is the case with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process.”

Another principle involves uncertainty and complexity. The more of each you have, the less sure you should be of your forecasts. Climate forecasts involve so many factors and so much uncertainty that Armstrong and Green believe they’re useless.

Many people believe these complex forecasts can be trusted because computer models are used. But so much uncertainty and subjectivity is involved in the input that Armstrong and Green say the use of these computer models is just a modern version of an old practice: the use of mathematics to make personal opinions sound more impressive. (Robert Malthus’s predictions on population increase and food decline, very influential in the 19th century, were presented with a lot of mathematics. They were wrong.)

Armstr