You know, that movie he came out with made me realize that if we had Al Gore as president, he'd actually be doing things to fight global warming. And most of those things involve ruining our economy. So we may not be so unlucky to have GW Bush instead. Discuss.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-01 19:32
And GW does not ruin the economy? Ponder this, spinoff technology from investments in environmental engineering equals profit in a world who believes in global warming. Military investments, not so much (since it is the american taxpayer who is the worlds largest buyer of military hardware). With Gore US could´ve had an edge in the next boom market, now they will be behind, and suffer for it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-01 19:45
It doesn't take a very long look at the economy in the US to see that it is not being ruined...
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-01 20:02
George Bush is in fact very popular with the economic center of America. Wall Street. Contrary to the fallacious belief of democrats, liberals and national socialists the hard working proletariats ( the most hard working in all of America) who work in Wall Street with families to feed are very fond of George Bush who criticised CEOs with corrupt business practices.
I'd rather have more personal freedom than a better national economy.
Also, with Gore we'd have an extra 1.2 trillion dollars, which is more than enough to help fight global warming AND the economy. So everything would be better off, actually.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-01 21:04
>>6
You could balance out the value of the 2. Would you rather have complete freedom but at the cost of by circumstance having to exist nude on Pluto.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-01 22:08
Nutzo #1 believes he alone has the truth, that he invented the internet, and Love Story was written about him. Nutzo#2 believes the people of Europe are his constituents and he is secretly a Kennedy. Those were near misses.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 3:26
I was just a kid, at the time, but I don't recall Al Gore being as enivromentally active while he was in the race for president. >>9 believes he embraced environmentalism for the selling of movie tickets and books.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 5:12
>>9
Are you kidding? His presence swung over a lot of environmentalists in the 1992 election. >>10 believes >>9 failed to do his research.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 8:35
I thought that a large reason for strong US economy today is the insane amounts of chinese investments. One can assume that those would have happened even if Gore would be prez. And to spell it out, environmental engineering is a better investment since it has and will have a bigger market than super modern stealth fighters and tac nukes. The chinese believe in global warming, they would like to buy products that limit it, or products that combat the averse effects of it. They would like to buy US military hardware too, but i dont think US govt are interested to arm the largest communist state in the world, at any profit.
Global warming is bullshit. You know this, right..?
Gore uses scare tactics and a lot of the shit he talks about is completely unfounded and false.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 11:03
>>13
You're right, Gore uses scare tactics, enviro-rhetoric, and a lot of shit he makes up or spins. He's not a very good spokesman.
Global warming, however, is not bullshit. Go read some studies. The science is there. The probability of absolute catastrophe, however, is still open to debate.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 11:04
>>13
Its now irrelevant if global warming is bullshit or not. A majority of the world believe it and will therefore act accordingly. Those bitter will be left in the wake.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 11:29
we'll run out of oil anyway
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 15:34
>>15
truth is irrelevant? how liberal of you. Didn't your mother ever tell you about chicken little? Being in the wake of a stampede is much better than running with the herd.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 15:49
The good news: we'll run out of oil before destroying the biosphere with it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 18:20
>>15
Its now irrelevant if global warming is bullshit or not. A majority of the US doesn't believe in it and will therefore will not act accordingly. Those bitter will be left in the wake.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 22:06
The truth is that we are in a warming period of the climate cycle. The debate is if this is part of the natural variation or man made. The world has chosen to believe the latter, to interpret the available data in this manner. Plans of investment and development will take this into account, insurance companies will assess risks with this in mind. It is no longer any point in debating the veracity in man made global warming, as it is pointless to debate if apollo 11 actually went to the moon or not. Most people have accepted it, and those who dont will suffer economically for it. It may not be fair or just, but what ever is.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 22:18
No.
If people who run this country are too retarded to keep the economy up while fighting global warming, the country doesn't deserve to exist.
I'm so sick of politics and religion getting their faggot noses into science. You're not scientists, you god-fearing lib-lican american pigs. Stop talking like you know anything.
I swear, I'll laugh when the US government comes toppling down.
Fuck the USA. Fuck this place and all it's supporters.
Global warming is "very likely" man made, which effectively means it is, but the new report is saying that there is not a lot we can do about it. Still, I think we need to do all that we can to stop it or go down swinging.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-05 0:07
People need to realize that there is no fucking way to stop global warming unless we do something incredibly radical. I think there are two choices here
1.Lower the standard of living to about the level the Native Americans were living at
2.Lower the population(and by lower,I mean 3 to 1 billion)
Everything else we do will only last for 10, maybe 20 years. Thats why I'm so for abortion, and also hate kids, so its 2x win for me.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-05 3:52
>>26
We need to do something radical, but both your suggestions are exagerations. We have tech that can lower greenhouse gas emmisions from industry and traffic, we can prolly keep about the same standard of living as the majority already have (in the world that is, not the us) without major problems. We are 6 billion people in the world, not 3, and we dont need to lower it by two thirds to combat global warming. We do need to lower it if we want to live sustainably for an extended period, since overpopultaion in risk areas quickly degrades arable land, and there is a net loss in arable land in the world, hueg problem, just not the biggest problem at the moment.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-05 8:46
18% (that's almost a fifth) of greenhouse gasses are caused by the world's livestock. Even if you had the tightest regulatory measures placed on industry, and we had ZERO fucking emissions from the rest of industry, livestock alone would still fuck you. So unless you are about to unveil some shitty plan to force the entire world into vegetarianism/veganism, there isn't really shit you can do.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-05 10:28
>standard of living as the majority already have (in the world that is, not the us) without major problems.
The majority of the world lives in abject poverty, discuss.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-05 10:40
Nuclear power.
Reduce global population.
The first one is easy, the second isn't. Most likely populations will continue to grow nad future generations will have to live on the bare minimum or starve. People forget that the majority of non-whites in the world are racists who are pathologically obsessed with breeding as much as possible.
Hopefully 1 or 2 first world countries will open their eyes and enact isolationist policies so that their people don't have to live like medieval serfs.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-05 10:44
>>29
Well it will only get worse with overpopulation. There are already liberals who think we shouldn't be using land that can only be used for grazing >>28 so that we can presumably bury grass, shoot the rabbits that infest it and thus take carbon out of the atmosphere.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-05 18:49
"the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change."
>>28
You are a faggot. Some greenhouse gasses are OK, without any plants would die and thus pretty much all life would die. All ecosystems are in a delicate balance this way. The problem is humans are throwing off the balance. Eventually some kind of plague or nuclear holocaust or something will have to come or overpopulation will consume the earth in 150 years or so when there is projected to be 11 billion people.