# What can t Al do ? GDG UPDATE



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

My Gosh, first he invents the internet then vice president turned actor/narrator is now a nobel prize nominee. 

GO Al 2008


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

Gore is the biggest joke in politics.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

I thought his book, Earth In The Balance was a good read and I applaud his efforts in crusading for a cleaner, healthier Earth.

Presidential material he is not.

If the current Pres. Bush has taught me anything, it is that not everything the Republicans stand for is just and not everything the Democrats stand for is folly! 

Newt For President!


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

I heard that on the radio on the way to work this morning. My first thought was what does global warming have to do with the peace prize? Especially considering the controversy of the reality of global warming. Is it really that weak of a year for candidates for the peace prize? Or, has the selection committee become that leftist?

Tom


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

I heard they offered it to one of my other heros, Jimmi Kottah, but he said one was enough. Gore deserves it just as much as Jimmi did.
If he didn't know how to say his name, how am I supposed to know how to spell it? Answer me dat?

Spelled it just like he says it regards,
Arturo


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

Well He can't give me anymore money cause my contract with the company says I'm only allowed 2 raises a year ------ what a damn shame for me 
________
BUY BUBBLERS


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

/Paul


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

twall said:



> .....
> My first thought was what does global warming have to do with the peace prize? Especially considering the controversy of the reality of global warming. ......
> Tom


There is not much controversy among the scientists providing the data. Gore just happens to be a messenger. The fact that he's a demo prompts all the repubs to cry, "heresy!!". Too bad, but I suppose if he were a repub then the demos would be .... :roll: 
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! This planet we're stuck on is not a political issue.

JS


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I am a little concerned at the "science" used to predict global warming as it seems that the same folks cant get tommorrows weather even close not even by 20 degrees or even if it will rain. I also think that data collected is much to recent (100years or so) to be accurate. I also read and it was from cnn not some right wing anti Al type publication. That compared to China it would take GM 150 years to produce enough suburbans and have them driven 24/7 to equal 1 year of chinas current emissions. I am no expert by any strecth but maybe Al can get some sub titles on his movie and show it in China.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

I agree with Steve, the science is flawed in many of the supposed studies, statistics can be manipulated. Not that I am a scientist but I know how to read scientific articles and some of the conclusion are more like speculations. I am ALL FOR decreasing the emissions as much as possible and we REALLY need to ramp up the effort for alternative energy. Some interesting reading on a fairly non-political slant can be found at
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/GetDrDewCategory.asp?Category=Global Warming

There is a list of articles and some are pretty interesting reading. Personally I think we are on a natural swing in global temperatures but man could be causing it to go faster. I do believe that the US was listed by some world organization as the biggest producer of CO2. Were I live we are 10-15 degress colder than "normal" and will be getting colder in the next several days. Actually I am glad to see it as the heavy freeze will help kill of a bunch of bugs. Now if it only would have gotten cold here BEFORE duck season closed!!!!


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Nate and Steve have summed up my points. The temperature has risen how much? 1-2 degrees. And how long have we been measuring it? And, do we really know why it is increasing? Earlier we were having one of the warmest winters on record here in Ohio. Early next week we are supposed to have the coldest weather in two years. 

There is more to this than anyone understands. Anyone who thinks they have it figured out is foolish.

Tom


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

js; DITTO


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

I keep thinking with Gore....follow the money.... 

let the scientist get the truth out....

interesting article........

NINE NUNS LAUNDER MONEY TO KEEP GORE'S ENVIRONMENT GREEN

"Hsia is also charged with raising $10,000 from the temple, laundered through four nuns, in September 1995. In February 1996, she allegedly arranged for another $25,000 contribution laundered through nine nuns. In July 1996, she is charged with raising another $10,000 from the temple laundered through two nuns. Hsia was rewarded with co-chairman status at a Presidential Gala attended by Clinton for her hard work.

"Yet, Gore maintains the temple luncheon was not a fund-raiser, but a ‘community outreach event.’ For this statement alone, Gore should be impeached for either high treason or profound stupidity – take your pick."

WHO TOLD THEM TO SHRED?

"Though I've never been one to over-estimate Gore's intelligence, it appears to be more in the order of high crimes and misdemeanors rather than ignorance. The Senate report says two weeks before the event, Gore's scheduler passed out a sheet showing that the luncheon had a ticket price ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 per head. Before the event, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes sent Gore a memo estimating the expected take from the event. Two guests at the luncheon say speakers, including John Huang and DNC Chairman Don Fowler, encouraged donations.

"And guess who sat at the head table with Gore? You guessed it. His long-time fund-raiser and organizer of the event, Maria Lynn Hsia. The temple has admitted shredding documents about the luncheon and shipping videotapes off to Taiwan."

GORE FOLLOWED THE MONEY

"These are the facts. But behind them lies something even more sinister than simple violations of campaign finance laws. Where did the money come from? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that much of it, maybe all of it, came from foreign sources. Given the participation of the Riadys and Huang, that likely means only one thing – China."


----------



## John Schmidt (Jun 20, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> I am a little concerned at the "science" used to predict global warming as it seems that the same folks cant get tommorrows weather even close not even by 20 degrees or even if it will rain. I also think that data collected is much to recent (100years or so) to be accurate. I also read and it was from cnn not some right wing anti Al type publication. That compared to China it would take GM 150 years to produce enough suburbans and have them driven 24/7 to equal 1 year of chinas current emissions. I am no expert by any strecth but maybe Al can get some sub titles on his movie and show it in China.


Unfortunately, your data source is wrong. It is quite easy to easy to do a google search with the words "CO2 emissions country" and see web pages that show data that says US produces nearly twice as much CO2 as China. 

It is not global warming, but global climate change. It is an unfortunate that the term "global warming" got attached to the phenomenon that is more accurately described as "global climate change". 

You must be looking at the farmer's almanac or something else, because the accuracy of predicting tomorrow's weather based on observations and computer modeling is amazingly accurate. Long term weather prediction for "local" regions is just about impossible due to the chaotic nature of weather, i.e. small variations can have huge impacts. The mathematical modeling of weather is amazingly hard, but even more amazing is how much we can do and how accurate it is. 

Please don't confuse the inability to predict temperature at your house with degree type accuracy to the ability or inability to predict global trends. Local variations are much much harder to model and predict than overall trends. This is quite similar to my ability to predict the size of your next field trial, while still being able to predict with a remarkable degree of accuracy that on a national level, the size of field trials will increase over time.

The scientific community is in overwhelming agreement about the state of global climate change. I am talking about peer reviewed articles based on scientific data, not the pontifications of a medical doctor turned popular writer (Michael Crichton) that advises the current President. Unfortunately, the popular press is sending out conflicting information that people latch onto. 

This is quite similar to the notion that we know that field trials size (Open and Ams) is increasing. However, we can easily point to trials where the size is either holding steady or fluctuates (increase and decrease) from year to year. I posted on RTF a plot of the increase in the trials based on RFTN data that showed that trial sizes were increasing for the Open and Am over time. Yet, one our our local trials (Great Salt Lake Retriever Club field trial in May) does not show the same trends that we see nationally. What are the local conditions that affect trial size in one area that "contradicts" the national trend?

If you can understand local field trial size variation and how it may or not track the national field trial size trends, then you can also understand how global weather conditions may or may not reflect your local trends. 

Tom Wall asks what happens if the global temperature increases by 1-2 degrees, so what. Now tell me if you have a glass with ice cubes in a room at 31 F and another glass with ice cubes in a room at 33 F, what will happen? Higher temperatures will result in faster melting rates. Tom also asks do we know why the temperature is increasing. The sun radiates energy to the earth. The earth radiates energy back into the atmosphere. However, the increased CO2 layers act as insulting layers doing a better job of preventing heat energy to escape via radiation. More CO2 in the atmosphere acts just like additional insulation to your house or double paned windows (vs single paned windows). 

Now why is the change of a couple of degrees a big deal. You have a bunch of ice on land (Greenland, and polar caps) that is melting faster now than it has in previous years. Since the ice is NOT in the water, but on land, the water from the ice will end up in the oceans increasing the oceans depths. The world's coast lines will change dramatically, and many cities will be wiped away. All because of the change of just a degree or two. Pretty small change, but pretty big effect.


John Schmidt


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Excellent post! 8)


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

John,

OK, call it global climate change. First, how is that related to the Noble Peace Prize? Second, the climate has changed over what time frame? Is the change outside of normal variation? Should we expect global climate to be constant? Was the global climate constant before man began burning fossil fuels?

Yes a change in water temperature from 31 to 33 results in a phase change of water from a solid to a liquid. Are you suggesting that historically the mean global temperature has been 31 degrees? Who's to blame for the glaciers from receeding? Was that a bad thing? Maybe we should try to create another glacier to blanket the midwest?

Google search for data? How is that any different from what the media does the next time they want to run an article on climate change? Data can be selected to support the position you support.

Peer reviewed papers.....hhmmmm. So a global climate change researcher is reviewing another global climate change reserachers work. Both depend on research dollars to support their research. Both base their research on the fact that global warming is new and out of the ordinary.

However old you believe the world is, does a less than 2 degree change in the past 100 years mean the climate has changed? Does the fact that I do not believe in global climate change mean I don't believe in energy conservation and reduction of emmisions? No.

Tom


----------



## John Schmidt (Jun 20, 2003)

Tom and others,

I am not a climatologist, however, I do have PhD in Electrical Engineering, and conduct large scale computer simulations of heat transfer using DOE supercomputers. I also work with other scientist and engineers that do computational fluid dynamics which is the basis of weather modeling. I am very familiar with computer modeling and comparing simulation results to experimental data. I am also very familiar with how science is done and the peer review process. 



twall said:


> John,
> 
> OK, call it global climate change. First, how is that related to the Noble Peace Prize?


I don't know, I wasn't addressing that issue. However, if you are interested take a look at: 

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html



> Second, the climate has changed over what time frame?


Millions of years.



> Is the change outside of normal variation?


It depends on what period of time you are considering. For recent years, the variation is not normal.



> Should we expect global climate to be constant?


No.



> Was the global climate constant before man began burning fossil fuels?


No. However, the variations are much more extreme now over a much shorter period of time than at other times.



> Yes a change in water temperature from 31 to 33 results in a phase change of water from a solid to a liquid. Are you suggesting that historically the mean global temperature has been 31 degrees?


No, what made you think I was suggesting the average global temperature was 31 degrees F? You remarked that the temperature has only increased 1-2 degrees, which I inferred from your remark as to "so what". I merely pointed out that 1 to 2 degree temperature variation can have an effect. 

Increasing temperatures have an influence on the RATE of phase changes that water is undergoing. 




> Who's to blame for the glaciers from receeding?


I wasn't trying to address blame. However, I will suggest based on data I have seen that increase in CO2 levels have contributed to global temperature rises. If you compute a correlation coefficient of the global temperature and the CO2 levels, you will see something that is statistically significant. 



> Was that a bad thing?


It all depends on where you live. If you live on or near the coasts, you will likely see more dramatic weather conditions. Living in the midwest, you might see more dramatic tornadoes. If you enjoy more variations in the weather, then I suppose it is not a bad thing. If you never really liked Miami, Houston, or New Orleans, or any other coastal city, having it submerged might not be a bad thing from your perspective. 



> Maybe we should try to create another glacier to blanket the midwest?


I am not sure if you are trying to be funny or serious, so I will leave this question unanswered.



> Google search for data? How is that any different from what the media does the next time they want to run an article on climate change? Data can be selected to support the position you support.


I am not in the popular press, and I don't know how they search for their data, but obviously, they are not up to the task of reporting scientific results.

If you are a good scientist, that is looking to either disprove or suppport a hypothesis, the conclusions are not subject to human emotions. You do not cherry pick your data. I have no agenda when I do science. I am just as happy when my hypothesis are wrong (although disappointed) as they are right (at least as supported by my results). Any good scientist feels the same way.



> Peer reviewed papers.....hhmmmm. So a global climate change researcher is reviewing another global climate change reserachers work. Both depend on research dollars to support their research. Both base their research on the fact that global warming is new and out of the ordinary.


I am not sure really what you are driving at, but if you don't understand the peer review process, I will try to briefly explain it. 

You perform research, you write it up and you submit it a journal for publication. During the review process, the paper you have written is given out to others who are considered experts in the same area you are doing the research. You usually have three reviewers look at your paper. The reviewers consider your paper and judge the quality of your results based on a number of different factors, such as the protocol used in the experiment, or the data gathered, the repeatability of the results, and the conclusions you drew from the data. Much of the data you gather is subject to statistical analysis and there are protocols that you follow when analyzing the data. If you don't know what you are doing, it is easy to do something wrong. It is up to the reviewers to examine your paper and results and look for inconsistencies or other things that may cause the paper to be rejected. 

Is this process perfect, of course not. However, it is quite similar to having two judges judge you in a field trial or a hunt test. The more reviewers the better.




> However old you believe the world is, does a less than 2 degree change in the past 100 years mean the climate has changed? Does the fact that I do not believe in global climate change mean I don't believe in energy conservation and reduction of emmisions? No.
> 
> Tom


The answer to your first question is yes, I believe the climate has changed even with a 2 degree change in temperature. 

I have no idea what the implications of your belief systems about global climate change are and how they relate to your notion of energy conservation and the reduction of emissions. The fact that you don't believe in global climate change but do believe in energy conservation is a good thing. I applaud your irrational actions because it has a globally beneficial end result.

I certainly hope that I may have put a ***** in your belief systems about global climate change, but if not, maybe I have helped others think about it in a different way.


John Schmidt


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

People; this is science NOT politics


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

mjh345 said:


> People; this is science NOT politics


Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a politician .... and a sore looser!


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

John -

Thanks for your excellent post. 

It is unfortunate that those who most fear any action that might curb their generation of greenhouse gasses have been so successful in trying to reduce science to the standards of politics. As a resident of S.E. PA who prefers the weather of Virginia, I'll admit that on some days a little global warming sounds like a good idea. But my house, built in 1920, was hit by two floods in its first 85 years and three floods in the last two years. When I consider that and look at my grandchildren, the idea of climate change is a little more daunting. While we will obviously have to deal with a lot of changes in the world if we are to survive as a species, part of our adaptation has to be learning how to not make the problem worse.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2007)

I am not a big fan of Al, but the preponderance of data that I have witnessed strongly support the notion of global climate change (I'm an environmental scientist). The pronounced fluctuations predicted for future weather patterns is alarming. However, I think an equally disturbing issue relates to the effects of alterred climate patterns on ecosystem integrity.

Recent empirical data demonstrates rather dramatic shifts in the geographic distribution of certain species. Not just animals, but vegetation which often dictates the distribution of animals. If predictive models are accurate, these shifts in species occurence will continue well into the future altering the ecological landscape as we now know it.

What does that mean for RTFers? It's tough to see into the future, but lots of folks have been complaining about the "ducks not coming far enough south anymore." It is concievable that this phenomenon (and others) are real and may "gather steam" in the future (pun intended).


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

I don’t believe in man caused global climate change. Every study I read is peppered with words like probably, may be caused, strongly supports, might.

Now that is science!!

I expect when this new report comes out it will also be peppered with similar phrases.

In addition, since it is not provable science, only the leading scientists that believe in the man caused global warming phenomena will be sited in the study.

If you believe in man caused global warming, fine I respect your position. Please alter “your” lifestyle in such a way as to demonstrate to the rest of us how we must live. That is the least you can do. Quit pontificating to the rest of us. Lead by example, not in the theoretical.


----------



## Jay Hinton (Feb 28, 2005)

Several years ago, when I was in college and studying Environmental Biology, we had a discussion on Global Warming/Climate change whichever you prefer. A speaker from NOAA came in and addressed us, and put it all into prospective for us. Paraphrased, as this was over 15 years ago, this is what he said, but I have always remembered it. 

"Think about an EKG, graphed on paper, Take all the ups and downs, valleys and peaks, and let that be a representative for the average of temps for the globe over the history of the earth. It is actually a fairly acccurate representation. Take the smallest point you can section out on that graph, and on either side you see a series of rises and falls. This is what the temperature has done for all of the history of the earth. That tiny section, placed at the end of the graph, would represent our entire history of accurately recorded global temps."

So, his point was, that trying to predict global warming in respect to comparing to recent recorded history, was similar to:

"Looking through a straw at the sky and trying to predict the weather for the next month 5000 miles away from your current position."

That being said, he was also a proponent of a green lifestyle, as a means to have a limited impact on the environment. A believer that we are having an impact on our climate, but fully understanding that our climate is capable of dramatic swings on it's own. For the record, he was the first person I ever heard use the term biodiesel, which makes much more sense than any 50mpg gasoline-fueled hybrid.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

From my perspective, I wish someone would watch the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and find faults with the science put forth in it.

It would be interesting to me for someone to persuasively shoot down something said in the movie, and I'm not arguing for or against it. He makes some pretty bold statements in the movie. Why not shoot him down where he stands?


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

DL said:


> From my perspective, I wish someone would watch the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and find faults with the science put forth in it.
> 
> It would be interesting to me for someone to persuasively shoot down something said in the movie, and I'm not arguing for or against it. He makes some pretty bold statements in the movie. Why not shoot him down where he stands?


I wouldn’t go watch a movie by Adolph Hitler spouting propaganda about Nazis, nor would I watch a movie by Michael Moore taking peoples positions out of context, nor would I watch or be indoctrinated by a left wing screed produced by the likes of Al Gore.

I would rather stick pins in my eyes.

Propaganda and left wing indoctrination, young man, protect yourself from its effects by reading both sided of the issue.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

I rented it from the video store.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

subroc said:


> DL said:
> 
> 
> > From my perspective, I wish someone would watch the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and find faults with the science put forth in it.
> ...


It is extremely unfortunate that ANYONE would be so biased as to limit or censor their information sources (on ANY topic) to such a drastic degree.
It severely narrows your scope and speaks volumes to the credibility of your conclusions.
Ironic that you would admonish the rest of us for not "reading both sides of the issue".:wink: 
JS


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

JS said:


> subroc said:
> 
> 
> > DL said:
> ...


Bias!!! :lol: Chuckling :lol: I advocated reading both sides of the issue. This issue is not new. I have read plenty on the issue and have already formulated an opinion and a belief. At this stage there is no need to watch an extremist, on this issue, stand in front of a screen and show short video clips of ice melting and polar bear stranded coupled with storm clips of tide rising to illustrate the ice sheet melting or showing Florida under water. That show has already been done many times.

My scope is not narrow, I am well read.

No bias here, I have just come to a different conclusion based on reading many reports and opinion pieces from both sides.

When I see reports with so many instances of may, might, could, possibly, etc. it makes my head spin.

If you call that science all the power in the world to you.


----------



## bmontang (Feb 7, 2006)

Does anyone besides me think it is somewhat presumptuous to think man can impact the weather. 

The earth has been on a gradual warming trend since well before the internal combustion engine was even thought about. The earth's climate fluctuates over long periods of time it just does. The why part is on my list to ask the Big Guy if he deems me worthy of joining Him in paradise. 


I agree with those who say we should be good shepherds of the earth because that is what He instructed. I strongly disagree with those who think we are responsible for the gradual warming we are experiencing. 

By the way, Rush Limbaugh was also nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize this year, just goes to show anyone can be nominated.


----------



## Cthomas (Sep 21, 2003)

Al gore's father, Albert Gore Sr., served in Congress for three decades. He was a key force behind the interstate highway system.
Auto's are a big source of CO2. 
Al Gore Jr., is just trying to fix the family mess. . .


----------



## GregorMac (Sep 11, 2006)

bmontang said:


> Does anyone besides me think it is somewhat presumptuous to think man can impact the weather.
> 
> The earth has been on a gradual warming trend since well before the internal combustion engine was even thought about. The earth's climate fluctuates over long periods of time it just does. The why part is on my list to ask the Big Guy if he deems me worthy of joining Him in paradise.
> 
> I agree with those who say we should be good shepherds of the earth because that is what He instructed. I strongly disagree with those who think we are responsible for the gradual warming we are experiencing.


I totally agree, bmontang. As Michael Savage said, just the other day, "ask where the glaciers went from the last ice age." The Earth goes through cycles, we know this; these cycles can be, and are, impacted by sun spots and other phenomena.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

A picture like this and an accusation that it is mans fault, mix in a little media spin and that is what poses for science in the current climate! (pun intended)


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

bmontang said:


> Does anyone besides me think it is somewhat presumptuous to think man can impact the weather.
> 
> The earth has been on a gradual warming trend since well before the internal combustion engine was even thought about. The earth's climate fluctuates over long periods of time it just does. The why part is on my list to ask the Big Guy if he deems me worthy of joining Him in paradise.
> 
> ...


In the movie, he says that we can affect the weather because the earths atmosphere is very thin. He says that its thickness is like a coat of varnish on a globe. I don't know whether it is or not. It is however a bold statement that someone could discredit.

As far as not thinking that we can affect the weather because God wouldn't let it happen (I realize that probally isn't exactly what you're saying.) a whole lot of crazy things happens in the bible before the end.

The part of the movie that I would like someone to discredit is the science of taking core samples of ice and determining CO2 levels for hundreds of thousands of years, or that the Navy has measured a decline in the ice at the north pole with sonar.

In the movie, he doesn't have pictures of polar bears, he has a cartoon of one swimming, and says there have been reports of polars drowning searching for solid ground when there haven't been as many reports in the past. That is another bold statement that someone could discredit.

He also says that there is no disagreement among scientists in regards to global warming, and that there is only disagreement among the general public who aren't scientists. That is another bold statement that could be discredited.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

What caused the warm period from about 800 to 1400 and the Mini Ice Age from about 1600 to 1850? Why are you so ready to believe that the increase in C02 in the atmosphere is the cause and you are willing to create the link between global warming and the C02 emissions? Could there be no link at all? Could it be the natural warming after the Mini Ice Age? 30 years ago there was a belief among the scientific community that we were causing an ice age.

The sun will come up tomorrow. 115 Americans will die in car accidents. Therefore the sun coming up caused the car accidents.

That is how specious I believe the link between C02 in the atmosphere and global warming is!


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

Although not a fan of Al Gore "the father of the internet" I don't believe we should shoot the messenger and not listen to the scientists. P.S. Subroc your "openmindedness" leaves me less than impressed


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

smillerdvm said:


> Although not a fan of Al Gore "the father of the internet" I don't believe we should shoot the messenger and not listen to the scientists. P.S. Subroc your "openmindedness" leaves me less than impressed


The only way you would consider me open-minded would be if I agreed with you.

A conclusion that differs from yours makes me closed minded!

I consider you easily lead by specious conclusions.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> People; this is science NOT politics


No, _*this*_ is RTF and it's all about:

a) dogs
b) GDG
c) politics
d) the conservative right
e) the liberal left
f) camel toes
g) Shane
h) Honcho III
i) Mr. Fallon
j) Dr. Ed
k) K.G.
l) Chris
m) you're a little touched, you know, Angie Baby
n) Ms. Vicki
o) open mindedness
p) positive training
q) Qui Chang Trainer
r) r-e-s-p-e-c-t
s) sanity
t) Ted
u) unconventional training methods
v) very devoted people
w) way back when...
x) xenophobics
y) you
z) none of the above

Hey I Got A New Puppy Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Hey I Got A New Puppy Regards,


Where's the pix???


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Hey I Got A New Puppy Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


Cool!!!

Tell us about the pup Joe!!


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Joe S. said:


> mjh345 said:
> 
> 
> > People; this is science NOT politics
> ...


aa) Dog will not seat on duck
bb) Why does my dawg holler when I pinch his ear?
cc) Do I really need to force fetch.
dd) When do I start treats
ee) Why should my dog retrieve at 400 yds. I never shoot anything that far.
ff) WTF is GDG
gg) I'm 50 years old. I ain't no newbie!

Arturo


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

While some theories say that we are experiancing global warming I might point out that other scientist say that we are going through global cooling. You can also do a study and have some point make the conclusion you want. Not long ago the leading scientist thought the world was flat. I am more suspect of global warming now than before Al was pushing it. He is no more of a expert on global warming than Sally Struthers is on hunger.


----------



## GregorMac (Sep 11, 2006)

DL said:


> In the movie, he says that we can affect the weather because the earths atmosphere is very thin. He says that its thickness is like a coat of varnish on a globe. I don't know whether it is or not. It is however a bold statement that someone could discredit.


Interesting. I recall hearing a few years ago that "Greenhouse Gases" are a small percentage of the overall atmosphere. (disclaimer: I don't fully understand the science of what I just wrote; I am simply passing on a science tidbit.)


----------



## MF (Oct 3, 2005)

Al couldn't clean Monicas dress.


----------



## GregorMac (Sep 11, 2006)

MF said:


> Al couldn't clean Monicas dress.


Was THAT his job? He botched that, for sure.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Boy ooooh boy, talk about inconvenient truth. I guess the title should be do as I say not as I do.

Here is link to story or you can search the net for your own source.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367 

I wonder how many thousands of gallons of jet fuel a week he goes thru.

Tenn. to LA would be about 3000 gallons one way. That would be about what I use in a year and a half in my 1 ton dually.


----------



## MJT1977 (Jul 20, 2005)

*Hypocrite's BS*

For Immediate Release: February 26, 2007

February 26, 2007

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.


In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. :shock:


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Investigating how much Al Gore spends on electricity in his home is pathetic.

Who says he has to practice what he preaches?

It is not like someone chooses to follow what he says, or believe what he says because he is a deserving leader. It is irrelevant. 

Science is Science. Someone should dispute the science, or explain why the science is getting rigged out of their favor. Science is intended to be impartial, and if it is not, someone should be called upon the mat to answer for it.

Why are polar bears being put on the endangered species list? Are scientists getting duped by Al Gore?


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

If Al is such a true believer about global warming, why isn't he doing his part by conserving gas and electircity? or is it just us tax paying peons who have to cut back?? I cannot afford high energy bills which is why I burn wood for heat. I am sure that puts me on Al's fecal roster. The hot air he produces in one speech on 'global warming' likely does as much damage to the ecosystem as any other single producer.

Science does not necessarily = fact. Scientists used to teach that the sun revolved around the earth WRONG. My elementary school science classes taught that grey squirrels hibernated in Maryland WRONG. The ones who believe in global warming may be wrong as well.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

First of all the theory of global warming is FAR from a consensus among scientist. In fact a large number of very reputable scientists dispute the claim. A large portion of this is driven by the UN in an effort to punish large successful countries (not to sound like a conspiracy theory but a large part of the science sited by global warmest comes from studies funded or done for the UN). 
If I remember correctly, last year we were told that global warming was a reason for “all the hurricanes” occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. Hummm….how many did we have this year? I guess global warming only causes increased hurricanes every other year so I will be sure to be prepared this year. Of course I am not sure how that theory plays out for the 8 hurricanes our area experienced in the 40’s, maybe a precursor to the forthcoming warming, I don’t know.
Is our climate changing? It certainly appears so, but for how long is anyone’s guess. Has this happened in the past billion or so years the earth has been in existence? I could not say, nor could anyone else for that matter. One would have to assume that post any ice age the earth would be in a state of “global warming” right up to the point that we descend into another ice age.
I find it very interesting that politics become so involved in this issue. The dems are fast to point out anything they feel is poor or weak data/information as it relates to Iraq or anything else the current administration does, yet will take global warming data/information at face value even though a good deal comes from that great organization that was also involved some misinformation involving Iraq (UN). I guess the UN has good scientist but poor intelligence people. 
This is about on the same scale as the feared bird flu. Warning, warning…the sky is falling. Peer reviewed journals mean nothing if the peers reviewing the data have nothing but very short sighted observations to go on. Where are the controlled studies? What has been done to rule out that the current climate changes are not simply normal cyclical patterns that have occurred for eons?


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Science is based on the scientific method. A hypothesys is formed. A test is developed to test the hypothesys, then people are left to form their own opinion. Its not biased. Thats what I learned in High School in the early eighties. 

As far as what is taught in a text book, something has to be written on the pages, and that comes from a general concensus. Science is not right or wrong, it is just evidence.

Maybe Al Gore doesn't believe in global warming, and he just sees an opportunity to profit on a movie. The fact that he doesn't live in an average sized house doesn't make me think he doesn't believe in global warming. He was the vice president of the United States. If he lived in the average home in the average neighborhood, it would be harder and more expensive for the secret service men to protect them.

Should he move into a smaller house, or does he need some solar panels, an energy efficient heat pump and some super saver light bulbs? In the movie, he doesn't say to do like he does. He lays out a solution, and says this is what it would take. Actually, in the movie it shows him flying around the world in jet giving speeches.

The UN is trying to punish large successful countries?


----------



## GregorMac (Sep 11, 2006)

DL said:


> Investigating how much Al Gore spends on electricity in his home is pathetic.
> 
> Who says he has to practice what he preaches?
> 
> ...


Are you serious? I hope this is written sarcastically or satirically. Are you saying that all the treehuggers can preach at us, telling us what WE should be doing, but they don't have to do it themselves? That strikes me as highly hypocritical. Either he believes in this stuff, or he doesn't...practice what you preach.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

I don't know if I believe in global warming or not. 

But yes, I think that someone that believes that global warming exists, and wants to educate people about it, can live in whatever house they want, and drive whatever car they want.

Just how much of a hermit should Al Gore be?

I actually watched the movie by the way, and but haven't read the news story because I am caught up in the idea that it is pathetic.

If the inconvenient truth is that the world is going to hell in a hand basket, and there is nothing we can do about, I appreciate someone telling me about it even if they are wrong.

Al Gore is a human being with wants and needs. If he makes some attempt to do something right once in a blue moon, even if he is wrong, I think it is a good thing. I don't care if he is rich. I wish I was.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

If Al really wanted to be "green" he would be peddling his way to his speaking engagements even if the secret service had to as well. BTW scientist in the not so distant past thought that the earth was flat. I talked to some of my customers that employ 7-10 people pretty much the same as my company. I will say that we are all only working 1 shift but it would take the combined effort of 5-6 companies to use that much energy and about 100,000 square feet of space to heat and cool to equal Als usage. Personally I dont care if he spends 10 times what he does now just dont preach to me from your private jet. The other thing that bothers me is he uses photos of factory smoke stacks that are sending something into the air and more than likely he is,has or will take campaign contributions from the very same company. 
Ted Kennedy did not want to spoil his view so he voted against a wind farm. Yet he votes for a bill that directly will cost more money to make my next new truck comply with new restrictive standards. The other thing I dont get is why must Americans continue to suck it up when we compete globally with China which could care less about pollution and so called global warming.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Christopher Columbus knew the earth was not flat as well the Monarchy that financed his voyage, and whatever scientists that existed in that era. It was the average citizen that thought the world was flat, and it was probally just a joke telling Columbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the world. 

I don't think Al Gore is in politics anymore and it was only one little documentary. What is the harm in that. People just got jealous because he won an oscar. He was a politician that people didn't respect, and here he is winning an oscar. It upset the status quo. He did his job too well and people want to punish him for effort. Every body wants Al Gore to be some wino begging for food on a street corner. Hey, I'd like to see Quayle make a documentary and win an oscar. That would be something.


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

How surprising that Gore won an Oscar from the Hollywood crowd. :shock: SHOCKING ISN'T IT


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

> Science is based on the scientific method. A hypothesys is formed. A test is developed to test the hypothesys, then people are left to form their own opinion. Its not biased. Thats what I learned in High School in the early eighties.


First off, scientific eveidence should not be up to someones opinion. Yes, research should begin with a hypothesis and proceed forward. What the government schools teach as scientific method is correct. But, the research being conducted is much more complex than your description. The development of the the hypothesis is biased by the one(s) developing it. You then have bias in the selection of factors studied and treatments applied. What is the control used? What is the statistical model used to analyze the data? Is it an appropriate model for the inferences you want to make? 

This is all colored by the funding source. Grant dollars are usually specified to eaither answer a specific question or for a specific area of research. 

Research is then validated through peer review. What is the bias of the reviewers? You then have the problem of the popular media exptraolating results for a story, another place for bias to enter.

Anyone who believes that the scientific research world is free from bias is either delusional or blissfully ignorant. When research dollars are at stake everything that can be done to continue the flow of dollars will be done. I'm not saying that researchers are regularly adjusting data to support their hypothesis. But, I am saying that the need for research dollars controls how and what many researchers do.

Yesterday I heard the figure that man is responsible for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If true, do you really think that we can have enough impact on atmospheric CO2 to change the climate?

Remember back to high school science and the carbon cycle. What was the biggest source/sink for carbon? The ocean. In theory, glacier/ice cap melting would decrease carbonate concentrations in the water thus increasing carbon absortion into the ocean. There is also the increase in plant growth rate due to higher atmospheric CO2 levels. Some plant species may be better adapted to higher CO2 levels giving them an advantage over other species thus allowing for a change in the mix of plant species found in certain habitats. I haven't looked up the results but the University of Illinois was doing field research with agronomic crops to see how increased atmospheric CO2 levels affected crop production/growth. There are some greenhouse crops where CO2 levels are increased to increase crop growth.

I'm sure I've gone on farther than most are willing to read. In the end, the greatest bias will be by those who search out the research results that support their story!

Tom
Tom


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Well said Tom!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, one thing for sure. I'd rather he do a movie on global warming than get involved in the PETA "I'd rather go Naked than wear fur" campaign.

/Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

DL said:


> Christopher Columbus knew the earth was not flat as well the Monarchy that financed his voyage, and whatever scientists that existed in that era. *It was the average citizen that thought the world was flat, and it was probally just a joke telling Columbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the world*.


Scientist did, however, believe at one time that each sperm container either a perfect little man or woman inside rather than a genetic package


----------



## RailRoadRetrievers (Feb 4, 2004)

He won an Oscar for best Documentary, it was nothing more than a power point presentation. So he shouldn't have even been considered for the award.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> DL said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher Columbus knew the earth was not flat as well the Monarchy that financed his voyage, and whatever scientists that existed in that era. *It was the average citizen that thought the world was flat, and it was probally just a joke telling Columbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the world*.
> ...


I've got to wonder what made the scientists think that. It couldn't have been very scientific. I'm kinda thinking the humunculus story just makes for good reading in a high school science test book as a bizarre obscure idea someone had, back before anybody knew anything, and most people couldn't read.

If I were looking at some sperm under a microscope and someone said there was a little person inside, I'd say lets smash the sperm open and see, or we need a more powerful microscope. Sperm are pretty big. You can see them with a low powered microscope.


----------



## gundogpa (Oct 18, 2005)

*Re: Hypocrite's BS*



MJT1977 said:


> In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. :shock:


It must take a lot of power to run the entire internet.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I know Im gonna get stomped on for this again, but why are we talking about a pol instead of dogs???? Every time you post about these idiots, the training threads get dumped. Im in trouble already for fussing about gdg, but I really count on the info here, and hate to see those threads usurped by nonsense.
Taking my licks ( :lol: ) regardless.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

DL said:


> badbullgator said:
> 
> 
> > DL said:
> ...



Anton van Leewenhoek first invented the microscope somewhere in the mid to late 1600’s (Robert Hooke had used lenses prior, but not as a microscope). Sperm was first “discovered” by one of Leewenhoek’s students shortly thereafter. They first thought the sperm were tiny animals. Leewenhoek went on to study the ejaculates in a wide range of both sick and healthy men. He described the sperm as animalcules in his report to the Royal Society in London. Remember this is the 1600’s and most thought sperm were simply parasites in the semen. Sperm was not thought to be a part of fertilization until about 1830 or so when several scientist discovered that sperm was necessary to fertilize an oocyte. I believe the names of these scientist were Dumas and Dajardin. Remember when the first sperm was observed under a microscope nobody even knew there was such a thing as an oocyte (egg) so the concept of creating a baby was very much a misery.
The point to all of this is that this is what scientist had to work with at the time. There was no such thing as a more powerful microscope or for that matter any way to, as you say, smash open a sperm. Even if they had been bale to “smash open” a sperm what do you supposed they would have seen? Certainly not cytoplasm or DNA since neither of these was known (and DNA would not be for about three centuries) nor could they be visualized with the primitive scopes of the 1600-1700’s. Most of the global warming data relies on what they have basically from today. Temperature records have only be loosely kept for about 150 years and fossil records cannot accurately depict weather conditions during a certain period. It took nearly 200 years from the time sperm was “discovered” until it was realized (and believed) that it was part of the fertilization package and even then the exact mechanisms were not known, that would take almost another 100 years. Since the first sperm was visualized we have come to know the numerous receptors involved in sperm oocyte interactions, that sperm must be activated to fertilize and oocyte, that there are numerous enzymatic reactions that take place when a sperm penetrated the zona pelucida of the oocyte that actually facilitates entrance of the sperm into the oocyte while at the same time virtually shutting down the mechanism and preventing other sperm from fertilizing the same oocyte. 
We know what we know and we quest to find out more. Time will always provide more insight to and data. My point is that the science of global warming is in it infancy and has a long way to go. Global warming could be something that is real, but how much of a danger it is or could be is yet to be seen and my point in my first post is that everyone (mostly the media and Hollywood) are accepting as fact something that is not even close. Albert Einstein once said “all the experiments in the world will never prove me right, but just one may prove me wrong”. 

For what it is worth sperm are about 1X5 um in size (head only w/o tail) with tail around 30-35 um while the human oocyte is around 100 um. While sperm can be visualized under 200X magnification to really see even minimal structure you need 400X and to really see a sperm up close and personal and be able to evaluate morphology you need not only 1000X but the sperm must be first fixed and stained. Interestingly enough you can kind of visualize an oocyte w/o magnification although that is due in no small part to the cumulus complex surrounding the oocyte making the size much closer to 500um overall. 

Have more than just a bit of insight to the scientific process regards


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> For what it is worth sperm are about 1X5 um in size (head only w/o tail) with tail around 30-35 um while the human oocyte is around 100 um. While sperm can be visualized under 200X magnification to really see even minimal structure you need 400X and to really see a sperm up close and personal and be able to evaluate morphology you need not only 1000X but the sperm must be first fixed and stained. Interestingly enough you can kind of visualize an oocyte w/o magnification although that is due in no small part to the cumulus complex surrounding the oocyte making the size much closer to 500um overall.


I love RTF.

SM


----------



## GregorMac (Sep 11, 2006)

DL said:


> I don't think Al Gore is in politics anymore and it was only one little documentary. What is the harm in that. People just got jealous because he won an oscar. He was a politician that people didn't respect, and here he is winning an oscar. It upset the status quo. He did his job too well and people want to punish him for effort.


Wow, you're a dim bulb. :roll:


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

2tall, I don't want to slam you; I just want to agree and second your idea. There are plenty of sites devoted to politics if thats what you want to do. I come to this site to talk DOGS!!


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

BBG
Wow you sure know alot about sperm :lol:


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> DL said:
> 
> 
> > badbullgator said:
> ...


This story starts after scientists knew that sperm weren't parisites. The theory wasn't that there were little men inside of parisites. The story is that there were little men and woman inside of sperm and that was part of reproduction. I still think it is odd that someone would think that there is a little tiny man balled up in the head of a sperm, and that it just makes good reading for a text book. 

Part of my point was that all that happened long ago before common technology existed. It goes along with saying science is often wrong, just look what people thought before Columbus. If someone has to go back that far to find an example it proves a point in default.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, I just have something to say about it.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

GregorMac said:


> DL said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think Al Gore is in politics anymore and it was only one little documentary. What is the harm in that. People just got jealous because he won an oscar. He was a politician that people didn't respect, and here he is winning an oscar. It upset the status quo. He did his job too well and people want to punish him for effort.
> ...


Well I'm smart enough to sum things up in a couple of sentences and make a point. I don't have to jump into a conversation with a five word sentence and resort to calling someone a name, without stating my position or entering into any discussion. I also am smart enough to realize that what I have to say doesn't amount to a hill of beans and it is just a viewpoint.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

> Part of my point was that all that happened long ago before common technology existed. It goes along with saying science is often wrong, just look what people thought before Columbus. *If someone has to go back that far to find an example it proves a point in default*.


Goin back that far is the point. Global waring and for that matter environmental science is sill at the Columbus stage and it will take many years before it reaches the technology stages that other sciences have worked for centuries to obtain


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

The other point is that this whole issue is not driven by the science but by the media, the UN and those with an agenda.

Tom


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

*BBG wrote*



> so the concept of creating a baby was very much a misery.


I love typo's. :lol:


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

brian breuer said:


> *BBG wrote*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



well sometimes it is :lol:


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

2tall said:


> I know Im gonna get stomped on for this again, but why are we talking about a pol instead of dogs???? Every time you post about these idiots, the training threads get dumped. Im in trouble already for fussing about gdg, but I really count on the info here, and hate to see those threads usurped by nonsense.
> Taking my licks ( :lol: ) regardless.





mjh345 said:


> 2tall, I don't want to slam you; I just want to agree and second your idea. There are plenty of sites devoted to politics if thats what you want to do. I come to this site to talk DOGS!!


You seem to want people to respond so hearyago ....
Did you click on this post expecting to find dog stuff? Helloooow! Good dog stuff is worth searching for! (Use the scroll bar :wink: ) There are other dog sites that don't allow GDG. Female dog, female dog, female dog. If it bothers you that much then don't let the door ..................! 
Just my .02 worth about you .02 worth!

Jus' tryin' to push dog stuff further down regards,
Arturo

Back to my LCD TV buyin' forum now...


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

What kind of TV are you looking at?

GDG regards


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> What kind of TV are you looking at?
> 
> GDG regards


I'm home alone ... and you got me laughin' out loud!
I bought a Vizio 47" 2 weeks ago and can't like it enough to keep it. I'm lookin' at replacin' it with an Olevia 747i! Almost double the price of the Vizio. I can't like Sharp, Samsung or Sony enough to buy one. To much banding, clouding, no PIP, to much money for a name etc ....

GDG'n all the way regards,
Arturo

P.S. And the Olevia doesn't produce any greenhouse gases .... jus' to stay on topic! :lol:


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

> P.S. And the Olevia doesn't produce any greenhouse gases .... jus' to stay on topic!


 But I bet the packaging is a problem for the environment :lol: 
I really like the Visio also. Thinking of getting one
Hijacking regards


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> > Part of my point was that all that happened long ago before common technology existed. It goes along with saying science is often wrong, just look what people thought before Columbus. *If someone has to go back that far to find an example it proves a point in default*.
> 
> 
> Goin back that far is the point. Global waring and for that matter environmental science is sill at the Columbus stage and it will take many years before it reaches the technology stages that other sciences have worked for centuries to obtain


One thing that strikes me about the situation is this. Al Gore says that things happen within the next fifty years.

I am just going to sit back and watch. I'll be driving my car and staying warm while I do it. 

According to Al, technology doesn't have time to advance. In ten or twenty years it will happen or it won't, or maybe it will happen only at a slow motion pace.

Even if things start happening, I don't think we will do anything to really stop it. It is not like we are going to sit in the cold, or ride around on bicycles.

I don't really care about a little more expensive exhaust system on a car, or maybe even nuclear power. It is not like anybody is going to make me cut back or something. If I thought that I'd be imagining things.


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

2tall said:


> I know Im gonna get stomped on for this again, but why are we talking about a pol instead of dogs???? Every time you post about these idiots, the training threads get dumped. Im in trouble already for fussing about gdg, but I really count on the info here, and hate to see those threads usurped by nonsense.
> Taking my licks ( :lol: ) regardless.



Why?


Because we're more than just a group of uni-minded individuals. Most of us develop relationships with each other - even if only electronically. When you have a relationship with people, you talk about more than just a single topic.

It's a natural part of human socialization.


Which also explains why it happens on every board you've been on in the past.

And why it will continue to happen on every other board you might join in the future.

8) 

Understanding our humanity regards,


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

Arturo said:


> Back to my LCD TV buyin' forum now...


eh - you should look at http://pdaphonehome.com/forums/


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

CNBarnes said:


> Arturo said:
> 
> 
> > Back to my LCD TV buyin' forum now...
> ...


Are you pullin' my leg? That forum is all about phones. Ain't got nuthin' bout' no TVs. I have a perfectly good Motorola StarTac.

Thankyaverymuch regards,
Arturo


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

This topic IS dog connected however you look at it. Ever eat the BBQ beans at the tailgate along with a beer or two? or the burritos and a taco from the roach wagon? or that wonderful Carolina BBQ? The gas they produce can't be enviornmentally friendly! What about Phideaux? no matter what food I use(I feed Pro Plan and Euk primarily) my crew will on occasion produce enough methane and sulfur to run a buzzard off a gut wagon, or sometimes even scare a skunk off a manure pile. The wife fed Gunny, my first Chessie boiled cabbage one night and I couldn't lite a cigarette in the house for about a week. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

It seems what else Al can't do is stop by security at the airport. Now I know some will say that he was led around the checkpoint. While on his way to another speech on global warming that he has done many many times as well as other things surely someone smart enough to invent the internet could remember that everyone including ex federal employees and speech givers must go the the same security checks as us regular Joe's. Better stick to the private jet thing Al :roll:


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

Arturo said:


> CNBarnes said:
> 
> 
> > Arturo said:
> ...



A GOOD pdaphone will have TV reception! 

Dreamin' regards,


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

assuming some of us are still alive 50 years from now, what will we tell our grandchildren if Mr. Gore is right?

i won't be here then, but i can't imagine what i'd tell Zack and Dillon if i were......even with 50 years to prepare.-paul


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Paul,

I agree that we need to look towards the future. I believe in conservation of resources. I think my motivation is 180 degrees from Al Gore and the climate change hysteria crowd. I use compact flourescent bulbs in my house to save money. That helps reduce my "carbon footprint" too but, that had nothing to do with my decision. My wife and daughter like to have a number of lights on in the house at night. I don't worry, as much, about turning lights off in empty rooms now. I think our nation should be building more nuclear power plants. I think the development of fuel cell technology will be great. We, as a nation, need to become less reliant on foreign energy sources. This is vital to our national security. 

We don't need the UN or Al Gore pretending to be chicken little and tell the sky is falling.

Tom


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I cant believe that more news keeps coming on Al. It seems that the carbon credits is buying is to a company that he is the chairman of :? :shock: 

The name of the company is Generation Investment Management.

I originally thought Al was a hypocrite but.....

I wonder if this will get as much coverage as Brittany's new hair cut :roll:


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

CNBarnes said:


> Arturo said:
> 
> 
> > CNBarnes said:
> ...


I got me a good pdaphone. It's has excellent TV reception! I mounted it on the wall above the fireplace. It looks great. Pictures to follow ............


Arturo


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> The name of the company is Generation Investment Management...


Oh this is too rich…



> Generation InVEstment ManagEment


Was that GIVE ME as in give me your carbon credits so I can feel good about telling others to live in a way that I refuse to.

:lol: Chuckling :lol: 

Assuming Al Gore is correct, which I do not concede, in a planet with 6 ½ billion people that have current needs for all the energy that is currently available, and needing more by the day, other than wise use of the energy you consume, there is nothing that can be done.

No need for hysteria.

No need for radicalism.

No need to indict someone else’s use.

No need to blame anyone or any corporation or any nation.

No need to feel guilty as citizens of the United States for our energy needs or uses.

Just consume your energy in the wisest manner possible.

If there really is a problem, which as I said above I don’t concede, it isn’t about the use of the energy, it is about the 6 ½ billion people needing it and using it.

Now if your goal is to blame the wealthy and successful nations for their success and find a way to tax them or force them to give money to the poor and less successful nations, maybe the carbon credit is an idea that one would find appealing.

Here is a scientific theory at odds with radical, man caused, global warming theory:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html?source=rss

BTW, while virtually all of the MSM didn’t give this position any coverage because it is at odds with their desire to promote the radical theory of man caused global warming; the media outlet that chose to present the information is National Geographic.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I have the solution that will end all of the global warming controversy. Since it follows that the dems, UN, and Hollywood are the ones at the forefront of the push, it seems to me that if enough republicans apologize for it the problem would be solved. It seems to be the top of every dem agenda that someone needs to apologize for something they have done.

I’ll start. I am sorry for global warming. There all better…well I suppose they will want some kind of restitution now for some poor person who has been affected by global warming to the point that they cannot earn a living (don’t want to) and need to redistribute my wealth…maybe this was not such a good idea after all
:? :lol:


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

If I accepted your conclusion, which I don't, that the problem is not the amount of energy being used but the number of people seeking to use energy, the "solution" is presumably to reduce the number of energy consumers. I'm not sure who you had in mind. It would seem most efficient to eliminate those consumers who consume the most -- ooops, that's us.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> If I accepted your conclusion, which I don't, that the problem is not the amount of energy being used but the number of people seeking to use energy, the "solution" is presumably to reduce the number of energy consumers. I'm not sure who you had in mind. It would seem most efficient to eliminate those consumers who consume the most -- ooops, that's us.


Let me start by saying that I do not believe in the theory of man caused global warming, at all!!

Now on to the conclusion, My remarks on the previous post relate to the theory, which I do not believe, but if one assumes that the theory is correct, my point is that the problem lies in the 6 ½ billion people that have energy needs every day and not in any one groups usage of that. It would be about the needs of the entire human race. And that energy need is still growing along with the population of the human race.

On to your position:

Would your solution to the problem be to eliminate the United States because we use energy at a higher rate than other nations?

You have an interesting world view. I expect you must be a member of the ACLU and believe in the UN and world government as well.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Actually, I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that global warming, or climate change, is the product of both natural cyclical factors and human activity. But before we dismiss natural factors too quickly, it is good to remember that natural factors wiped out the dinosaurs and can wipe us out just as easily. When people make the observation that temperatures through history have fluctuated widely, they normally forget to mention that humans have not existed at many of those temperatures.

I think it is in our interest to explore ways to reduce our environmental footprint both by conserving energy and by identifying and deploying better (i.e. more eco-friendly) energy technologies. As the world leader both in technology and in consumption, I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to be a leader in this effort rather than a primary obstacle.

While I'm not sure of its relevance to the discussion, I am not currently a member of the ACLU although I served on the Mercer County (NJ) Board of Directors for the ACLU about 30 years ago. I definitely believe in the U.N. as a vehicle for supporting multi-national efforts in a number of areas. I don't believe in a world government. I'm not even sure I believe very strongly in national governments and I know I don't believe in being governed by Microsoft, Exxon, the Republicans, the Democrats, or anybody's religion. If it makes you feel better, I also go to church every Sunday but I don't believe that there is any god that will prevent us from destroying ourselves through foolish choices of free will. Rather, I believe that each of us has a moral responsibility, within the limits of our abilities, to give back more than we take in our interactions with the each other and the world we live in.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> Actually, I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that global warming, or climate change, is the product of both natural cyclical factors and human activity.


As you say, you “think” the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Not very scientific a method. If you “think” then there is really nothing overwhelming about it. If you “think” it, it is speculation at best.



YardleyLabs said:


> But before we dismiss natural factors too quickly, it is good to remember that natural factors wiped out the dinosaurs and can wipe us out just as easily. When people make the observation that temperatures through history have fluctuated widely, they normally forget to mention that humans have not existed at many of those temperatures.


I don’t understand this point as it relates to the theory of man caused global warming? Are you saying that natural disasters have occurred throughout history and prehistory. We have had fluctuations in temperature in past history and prehistory but now that man is here any temperature change is his fault?

I don’t get what you are trying to say.



YardleyLabs said:


> I think it is in our interest to explore ways to reduce our environmental footprint both by conserving energy and by identifying and deploying better (i.e. more eco-friendly) energy technologies…


Sure, why not.



YardleyLabs said:


> As the world leader both in technology and in consumption, I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to be a leader in this effort rather than a primary obstacle…


In what way and to who is the Unite States an obstacle?

I expect you are referring to that United States crippling treaty, Kyoto.

I, on the other hand, believe the United States has a responsibility to its citizens not to cripple itself with foolish treaties. It needs to make sure that whatever treaty it signs is best for the United States. Period, and if in the process the other signatory gets a good deal then OK. The United States needs to come first in any negotiation.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I am not currently a member of the ACLU although I served on the Mercer County (NJ) Board of Directors for the ACLU about 30 years ago. I definitely believe in the U.N. as a vehicle for supporting multi-national efforts in a number of areas.


 These 2 organisms are run by the mentally ill and need to be dismantle or eradicated immedialtely. 
I think we will all turn muslim before we destroy the earth with co2..
Key word is "I Think"

Its the same ludacrist liberal thinking that is trying to push through the legislation that would make it illegal for dogs at all kennels to excercise on grass.,or go outside in the rain or walk through the mud :shock: 


Its so STUPID I can't think about it.

What a bunch of faciast pig regaurds


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

I am fairly sure that the US will experience financial disaster long before it experiences environmental disaster.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I _think _is definitely the key word or, as Descartes put it in the 18th century, _cogito ergo sum_ (I think therefore I am). The scientific method is based on theories, hypotheses, evidence, and probabilities. Only religion is certain and the number of disagreements among religions and even within religions over time suggests that almost all of that certainty is plain wrong. 

In reaching its conclusions that global warming was happening and was unequivocably linked to human activity, the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change was very careful to qualify its conclusions.

*From the International Herald Tribune, Feb 2, 2007:*



> In a bleak and powerful assesment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate change scientists concluded for the first time Friday that global warming was "unequivocal" and that human activity was "very likely" to blame. The warming will continue for hundreds of years, they predicted.
> 
> The scientists, members of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, said that new science had also allowed them to conclude that the warming caused by human activity was probably influencing other aspects of climate change, including a rise in the number of heat waves, extreme storms and droughts, as well as ocean warming and wind patterns.
> 
> ...


Scientists are likely to say the odds are "100%" about a century after the last iceberg has melted and even then there will be disagreement from those who believe that Muslim communists hid the ice to attack western culture. Our opportunities to affect the future, however, will need to be initiated before there is complete certainty. As the consumer of almost one-third of the world's energy resources now, there is no possibility of effective action that does not include a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States.

I don't believe that our economy will collapse if we take serious action to curb greenhouse gasses -- although there will clearly be winners among those who can sell things that help and losers among those who refuse to change. Our economy could collapse if our government continues to spend more money than it takes in pretending that it doesn't make a difference.

Fortunately, I don't expect any of this to have a significant immediate impact on our shared love of retrievers and the things they do. :wink:


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Paragraph 1 – very likely

Paragraph 2 – was probably influencing

Paragraph 3 – far more confident

Paragraph last – scientists had increased certainty on a connection from their previous estimate of 66 percent to 90 percent.

The big word in the last paragraph is estimate

Man caused global warming theorists really know there way around scientific certainty






YardleyLabs said:


> I _think _is definitely the key word or, as Descartes put it in the 18th century, _cogito ergo sum_ (I think therefore I am). The scientific method is based on theories, hypotheses, evidence, and probabilities. Only religion is certain and the number of disagreements among religions and even within religions over time suggests that almost all of that certainty is plain wrong.
> 
> In reaching its conclusions that global warming was happening and was unequivocably linked to human activity, the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change was very careful to qualify its conclusions.
> 
> ...


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I'm not sure I understand your point. If a scientist says that almost any prediction of the future is absolutely true, they are either lying or incompetent.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point. If a scientist says that almost any prediction of the future is absolutely true, they are either lying or incompetent.


No, if a scientist speculates or predicts, it is called speculation or prediction and while given weight because he is a learned, it is still or should be viewed as speculation or prediction.

But when a scientist solves a scientific puzzle, he presents proofs that the matter is no longer speculation. The matter is solved. The problem is solved. The proofs can be tested by others.

The fact that many do not see the distinction in something as large an issue as this is actually, in a sick sense, humorous.

Gathering a group of scientists that believe in a particular hypothesis together, without bringing those that decent from their preconceived theory, and having them change their “estimate” from 66% to 90% and calling that science is the most ludicrous part of the entire process. 

This issue is more political than scientific.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I think this thread has gone on too long. However, by your definition I'm not sure there's been a scientist since Pythagoras.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Pete said:


> regaurds


It's *REGARDS*.

Just trying to be helpful...it's my nature, you know.

Helpful Regards,

Helpy Helperson


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> I think this thread has gone on too long. However, by your definition I'm not sure there's been a scientist since Pythagoras.


As you can see, I do not believe in the theory of man caused global warming at all. Not even a little. In the future I will probably be jailed as a global warming denier. 

But at this point, we have reached the point of beating the dead horse.

No further action necessary! 

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?...ine=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ogy.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965


http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

subroc said:


> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle


Not wanting to get 'involved' in this thread, because anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows the entire hypothesis is a political ruse.

But after viewing this documentary, it's my hope anyone interested in getting beyond the Algore politics will take the time to view this piece.

Thank you for making this available to RTF, Subroc. I for one, appreciate your vigilance.

UB


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Thanks UB, I wish you a speedy recovery!!!!

The antithesis of Al Gores movie. The google link has been cut so here is a youtube posting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

I wonder how many will view this?

Many accepted Al Gores movie as fact. He!!, the guy won an Oscar.

In this piece we have a group of scientists that present the various facts, conclusions and positions and pretty much refute the entire man caused global warming theory. These guys are scientists too. Are their conclusions specious?

If there are any high powered minds that peruse this BB feel free to take these conclusions on.

Some in the scientific community believe Al Gore is overstating his conclusions and the article is in none other than, that bastion of liberalism, the New York times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/s...7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Another global warming event called off by cold weather!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

My father always cautioned me to "hope for the best but plan for the worst"

I'm sorry this debate is so political, as far as Swindle goes, well I guess there are well monied lobbies on both sides of this arguement. Did you think the Energy sector would just shrug and keep quiet on something which could cripple their industry? If they weren't doing their best to influence public opinion they wouldn't be serving their investors well, now would they.
Does it really matter if the events we are witnessing in climate change are man made or not, shouldn't the issue be: can they be man fixed?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

What blind ambition said


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

blind ambition said:


> …Does it really matter if the events we are witnessing in climate change are man made or not, shouldn't the issue be: can they be man fixed?


Do you honestly believe man can change the weather in either direction?


----------



## GregorMac (Sep 11, 2006)

subroc said:


> blind ambition said:
> 
> 
> > …Does it really matter if the events we are witnessing in climate change are man made or not, shouldn't the issue be: can they be man fixed?
> ...


Nope. 

Great video.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

subroc said:


> blind ambition said:
> 
> 
> > …Does it really matter if the events we are witnessing in climate change are man made or not, shouldn't the issue be: can they be man fixed?
> ...



Sure.....Why not? Part of the argument against global warming is that there really isn't enough data to "prove" it. Our sample set is just way to small. But by the same argument, you can't logically conclude that we don't have an impact.


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

subroc said:


> blind ambition said:
> 
> 
> > …Does it really matter if the events we are witnessing in climate change are man made or not, shouldn't the issue be: can they be man fixed?
> ...


I was a boy when JFK set forth the greatest positive challenge a nation that any leader in the history of this planet had ever done before...PUT A MAN ON THE MOON! Many were exhilarated by the challenge, many feared it, many thought it shouldn't be done and still more believed it couldn't be done. 

How do YOU know what the limits of man are? To answer your question, I haven't a clue? But unless you are certain your grandchildren can enjoy the fruits of this big blue marble as you have, wouldn't you like to see us try?


----------



## GregorMac (Sep 11, 2006)

blind ambition said:


> How do YOU know what the limits of man are? To answer your question, I haven't a clue? But unless you are certain your grandchildren can enjoy the fruits of this big blue marble as you have, wouldn't you like to see us try?


Uh...did you watch the clip? Human-produced CO2 is like .05% of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere. We are a minor league player. You can choose to believe that anything can happen; however, all you are doing is turning your brain off and abdicating your right to think to Al Gore.


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

blind ambition said:


> Does it really matter if the events we are witnessing in climate change are man made or not, shouldn't the issue be: can they be man fixed?





GregorMac said:


> We are a minor league player


When the whole USofA sees itself as a minor league player I'll give up hope. Why are you so negative about your own or your nation's power?
The America I know is capable of doing just about anything it wants.


----------



## GregorMac (Sep 11, 2006)

blind ambition said:


> When the whole USofA sees itself as a minor league player I'll give up hope. Why are you so negative about your own or your nation's power?
> 
> The America I know is capable of doing just about anything it wants.


Negative about "my nation's" power? I'm saying that we are the small fish when it comes to contribution of 'Greenhouse Gases'. Mankind as a whole, not the U.S. alone, contributes a *minimal percentage* of overall CO2 emissions into the Troposphere. If you spit into Lake Michigan, you don't affect the water level too much. Of course, that is a simplistic analogy; however, the point remains.

Why are you so convinced that you are part of the problem?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

blind ambition said:


> Does it really matter if the events we are witnessing in climate change are man made or not, shouldn't the issue be: can they be man fixed?


Then you would have to believe that something needed to be fixed in the first place. IT aint broke. Just because they have recorded some observations does not in any way mean that climate change is bad. These observations are simply a nanosecond in the history of this planet. It is just the universe doing its thing. It has for eternity and will continue to do so long after only the cockroaches are left.

This, like a lot of other environmental science, is junk science. How do you make money and get grants as an environmental scientist? Ask the drug companies? Private investors? No. You create a “problem” and then convince the government to throw money at it. 
We have what is called red tide here. It is an algae that blooms in the warmer waters and kills fish. It has been going on forever. There are stories of the first Spanish sailors sailing into the area to a sea of dead fish. I personally have witnessed it for over 40 years. Some years the fish kills are bad, other no kills at all. Suddenly with the extra large influx of new residents from other areas, red tide has become a front page story everyday in the paper and a lead story on the news. The way they tell it this is a “new” event. They, government agencies, are throwing money left and right at a problem that is not really a problem, except that it is unsightly and causes loss of revenue in tourist dollars. They sell it as being detrimental to fish populations, but I assure you it is not (again first had witness for 40+ years). The environmental guys even acknowledge that there is most likely no way to prevent this natural event from happening, but they want to research where and when the outbreaks are happening. Great use of our tax money, I can tell you where and when by the fish floating.
Another fine example of how environmental science works. We have a major water quality issue caused by billions of gallons of water being dumped into our river from Lake Okeechobee each year. The problem began when the Army Corps of Engineers diked the lake and redirected the natural water flow from the lake through the everglades. Now who do you suppose is charged with “fixing” the problem? Scientist from the Army Corps of Engineers. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Let me say that before you think I am only down on junk science in the environmental field that the same thing happens in other research. West Nile Virus is a prime example. It kills about 12 people a year across the USA each year and those are elderly, infants, or otherwise compromised immune systems. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more spent on research of WNV (I know I got some) and for what reason?
Can anyone say Bird Flu?
The sky is falling regards


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

subroc said:


> blind ambition said:
> 
> 
> > …Does it really matter if the events we are witnessing in climate change are man made or not, shouldn't the issue be: can they be man fixed?
> ...


After watching most of the video clip, I'm convinced global warming is a farce. If someone had explained it like in the video clip, I would have believed without a doubt that it was a farce from the very beginning. If the explanation had not been like the riddler in Batman saying "ridle me this cape crusader", I would have caught on faster. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

*al gore*

As someone a few pages back pointed out, when I was in college in the 70's, all the Hennie Pennie, trendy, learned scientist types were screaming about the impending ICE AGE! Give me a break! It's all political and who can say that our meteorological records of the last 100 years predict anything about the next eons of time or the previous eons of time. We are fly specks on the time line of the history of planet earth and its climate. If there are changes (which there are) we make NO difference! It's going to happen with or without us and our carbon print or whatever the latest PC terminology is.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

blind ambition said:


> subroc said:
> 
> 
> > blind ambition said:
> ...


Try what? Try to change the weather?



Frenchy said:


> subroc said:
> 
> 
> > blind ambition said:
> ...


I sure can logically conclude it and I don’t have to prove anything. I believe we are in a natural earth pattern that has been replicated hundreds of times over the course of this planets history. You have a theory that is trying to prove that is not the case. Feel free to continue your effort.

The term impact has a wide variety of meanings. 6 ½ billion humans have an impact on this planet. Three mosquitoes also have an impact. Short of killing 6 ½ billion people off, what is your solution to your impact dilemma?


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

I could give a rodent's hind orifice if the problem is man made and won't get bogged down in such a limited debate.

Floods aren't all man made but we engineer dikes, earthquakes aren't man made but we attempt to engineer our cities principle structure to withstand them. 

The fact that the earth has seen it all before is of no interest to me, either those events occurred well before man inhabited the planet or they occurred when life expectancy was a significant fraction of what it is today. My concern is; Knowing that the planet is warming but not knowing what the upper limit to the warming is or the speed of change will my children and theirs be able to live in the new climate? 

Me, I have no answers either way. I'm no genius and my pay scale reflects this but in the meanwhile I will; turn off the lights, lower the thermostat, continue to drive a fuel efficient car etc. etc. and support policies which reduce CO2. If this makes no difference, fine I'll use the money I've saved to buy a new shotgun.

I like action and have no use for Chicken Littles or Ostriches


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

blind ambition said:


> ...I will; turn off the lights, lower the thermostat, continue to drive a fuel efficient car etc. etc...


I believe in these things too, I recycle as well. Although my car isn’t very fuel efficient. Wise use of resources and energy conservation should be the hallmark of all humans.

I just chose not to link proper ecological behavior to the man caused global warming theory. I also don’t really care how someone else uses their energy. While I would bust Al Gores chops over his hypocritical behavior, I don’t really care if he uses the energy or not.


----------

