Gore: Polluters Finance Research to Cast Doubt on Global Warming

By Gillian Wong | August 10, 2007

  • August 10, 2007 at 10:37 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Politicians (Gore included) are known liars. Big oil companies are known liars.

    I don’t know what or whom to believe.

    Is that an overly cynical attitude? Maybe so.

    I carpool, I recycle, I turn off lights when I leave a room and when appliances break, I will have them repaired or buy used ones when possible. So I feel like I’m doing my part to “save the world”.

    Al Gore and Big Oil can both kiss my grits. If they would put their money and efforts towards actually making a difference instead of fighting back and forth over who can buy the most valid ‘science’, they would get a lot more accomplished.

    Seems like Big Oil is more content to charge outrageous prices and sell us hot fuel than do anything to conserve the planet. They are far more interested in making a buck right now than having things like trees or clean water in the future.

    For those of you unfamiliar with the issue of hot fuel, you can find more info here. http://www.turndownhotfuel.com/

  • August 10, 2007 at 10:58 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m with you KLS…which side to believe??? I trust neither.

    but i guarantee you, the fact that you recycle, carpool, etc…will cause the right to call you a bleeding tree hugger and take that as an act of aggression against conservative beliefs. because you know, weather IS a political issue.

    there seems to be three groups in the world today, liberals, conservatives, and us realists….unfortunately, I think the realists are a SMALL minority. why think rationally when you can be irrational and uncompromising.

  • August 10, 2007 at 11:57 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Realists being a small minority is just as scary as thinking there will be no fresh air to breathe at some point in our lifetime.

    There are probably more moderate-minded people out there. We just don’t recognize them because all the extreme-sided crazy pants people are making so much noise. They’re a bunch of squeaky wheels.

    I don’t know about you, but election time gives me heartburn. It’s like making a choice between bad and worse. I agonize over voting! LOL

    Hopefully they won’t call me a tree hugger. I’m hoping for something more creative than that. ;)

  • August 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm
    DWT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Honestly I think that the “Realists” are the vast majority of the population. Unfortunately our views and stories don’t have the same doom and gloom headlines as the other groups. In addition, most people would prefer to read the headlines instead of making the headlines, so the realist are often ignored.

    As for me, I tend to believe that this warming (and I do believe the climate is warming) is part of a natural cycle that our climate has gone through in the past and continues to go through today. The evidence to this is the numerous ice ages and warm periods that have been shown to occur over the past 4 million years.

    Buy your air conditioning stock now!

  • August 10, 2007 at 12:44 pm
    Phillip says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s why their subscriptions are in the tank.

  • August 10, 2007 at 12:51 pm
    Ohioan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How on earth can anyone deny global warming? It was over 100 degrees in Northern Ohio yesterday. That’s NOT normal. I suppose they’re making up the melting of the polar ice caps too, right. Gimme a break.

  • August 10, 2007 at 12:54 pm
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    CO2 emissions must be curbed. The hot air from Gore’s mouth alone is equal to the entire CO2 output from Mt. St. Helens. And speaking of volcanic activity, what does Al plan to do about that? Doesn’t volcanic activity add more CO2 to our atmosphere than any other source by far?

  • August 10, 2007 at 12:57 pm
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ohioan,

    The issue of global warming, whether or not caused by man, can not be supported by what the temperature is today or yesterday. Trust me, yesterday is not the first time Ohio has seen 100 degrees.

    The Earth has warmed 1.3 degrees over the last one humdred years. This heat wave is NOT a sign of global warming!

  • August 10, 2007 at 12:57 pm
    bigshnoz says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Don’t forget about the cow’s farting! Buy stock in cork!

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:04 am
    Ned says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Indeed, the warming is natural and not man made. Therefore the solutions posed by Gore and his ilk will be fruitless. It’s also interesting that Gore won’t commit to live as he’s encouraging everyone else to. If he really believed his rhetoric, I think he’d sell his 4 mansions that each use 20 times the energy of the average household and live more modestly. So what is his real agenda?!

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:09 am
    DWT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am not denying that the earth is warming. It is…

    What I do deny is that man can appreciably impact what is happening. For more than 4 million years the earths weather has fluctuated and it will continue to do so.

    What the politicians are hoping for is that they can scare us with there gloom and doom, hoping to make “US” think that they are the only ones who can save us from ourselves.

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:10 am
    Nellie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Don’t be absurd! Of course yesterday’s 100 degree temperature is a sign of global warming. Just like record cold temperatures are a sign of global warming. Flooding is caused by warming as are droughts. Everything is due to global warming and if we don’t do everything Al Gore says, WE DOOMED!!

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:11 am
    BLANK says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is not about money, it is not about who is right or wrong, it is about survival. Whether global warming is caused by man or simply part of a natural cycle is not an important issue either. If it is happening, and few deny that it is, we must use our combined intelligence and collectively combat global warming. If we do not, we can sit back, relax and end up like the dinosaurs – extinct (from the heat or the ice age that follows).

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:15 am
    Desertrat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As someone said earlier, follow the money. How many scientists are having their research fully funded because they have jumped on the global warming “end of the earth” bandwagon? Science feeds off of grants and donations to their research. Find the right cause-celeb and science makes money hand over fist.

    There was “overwhelming data” in the period of 1895-1912 that we were in peril of the “new ice age”. Suddenyl there was a change-up and “overwhelming data” during the period of 1932 to 1969 indicated that “global warming” was a huge threat to the world. Then in 1975 we found again, “overwhelming data” that were were once again entering a new ice age. http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    Now, we are all going to burn up once again. I just wish they would make up their minds.

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:17 am
    Ned says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The point you’re missing is that because man has no power to impact the global temperature, our combined intelligence and collective combating will change the temperature exactly 0.0 degrees.

    Speaking of the ice age to follow, what happened to the one these same warming folks were crying about 25 years ago?

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:22 am
    T.E. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t understand the public concern over so-called “hot fuel”. It is factually correct that that without temperature compensation, volume metering will result in delivery of fewer molecules at elevated gasoline temperature. But, there are other sides to this story.

    If temperature compesation is mandated basis 60 deg F, then the public will “loose” moleculues relative to what they get today if gasoline temperature is lower than 60 deg F. Temperature compensation might “help” consumers in the summer months, but would “hurt” consumers in winter months.

    However, the notion of temperature compensation “help” or “hurt” neglects the impact of supply-demand upon pricing. Changing the measurement to a temperature-compensated standard does nothing to change the supply or demand of gasoline. It merely changes the measurement to more closely reflect the number of molecules being transferred. Withoutt a fundamental change to the supply-demand relationship, temperature compensation at the pump will do little to change the consumer’s annual gasoline bill (presuming their driving habits remain unchanged).

    It could be argued that mandating temperature compensation will increase cost to the consumer. Gasoline marketers, especially small independents, are likely to want a return on their investment in temperature compensation.

    The boottom line is that consumers are not likely to benefit from mandates for temperature compensation of gasoline.

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:29 am
    Cut the Crap says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    …And since everything else Gore has told us is solidly based in fact I’m sure this is as well. Hey Gore-who’s got the bigger carbon footprint-you or John Edwards?

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:30 am
    The seeing eye says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s strange how most weathermen have a hard time predicting the weather one week in advance but Al Gore claims the omniscience to know what it will be 100 years from today. Of course, the fact that Gore owns part of a company that sells “carbon credits” has no influence on his dire pronouncements.

    Of course, we should fully trust the government to control the weather. Look at how well they manage brige building, hurricane disaster response, and anything else they tackle.

    I agree with the commenter who said that the Insurance Journal is turning left. Why else would they have a home page video of a speech by a “sustainability consultant?”

    If you want a dead-on accurate look at the “global warming” mentality, watch the South Park episode “Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow.”

    And remember, everything is cause by global warming: colder weather, hotter weather, more rain,less rain, unusual bird migrations, more bees, less bees, more snow, less snow, a dip in the median American League batting average, etc.

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:35 am
    Ray says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am truly surprised that so many of you agree with my feelings. I have a chart that shows global temperature fluctuations for the past 400,000 years and there have been four prior temperature peaks (now coming into the fifth) during that time. About every 100,00 to 150,000 years our earth gets hot (it ws hotten about 10,000 years ago than now) and we appear to be on the upside of the graph – still more to go.

    Yes, volcanoes and cows do contribute,and so do we, but Mother Earth does her thing rather we like it or not.

    Unusually low solar activity between 1645-1715 likely triggered the ‘Little Ice Age’ in regions like Europe and North America. That wasn’t that long ago, by any means and nowhere near the 150,000 year cycle.

    Gore has just found himself a cash cow and eavne in science you can find folks to go along with almost any point of view.

    Yes – we are in a warming period but is man the cause?

    I think not.

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:40 am
    LaTonya says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply being ridiculous. The evidence is obvious.

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:42 am
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    …and that evidence is…???

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:43 am
    Maladictus Maximumus says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Interesting that even a ‘one percent’ chance of any terrorist threat must be treated as a 100 percent certainty, as per VP Cheney, but anything less than 100 percent proof that mankind is screwing up the earth is not enough for many on the right.
    Assuming that neither 0 percent or 100 percent certainty can ever be achieved with regards to mankind damaging the planet, I have a simple criteria for all Climate Change skeptics:

    What is the percentage of chance YOU would accept that your child care provider is an HIV+ active child molester? Remember, ‘Zero’ is not a possibility, can’t prove a negative?
    That probability is the number that is acceptable to me BEFORE drastic action should be taken, damn the costs or other consequences, to end any threat to the planet from the actions of mankind.

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:43 am
    Kelly Sims, AIC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    if not man, then who is to blame, Ray? We’re having weather patterns here in the Msissouri Valley that are unlike anything I have ever seen

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:50 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hot fuel isn’t only about what will impact the consumer’s budget.

    It is about how Big Oil retailers are charging a certain price for a certain unit of fuel and for that price, we are not getting what we pay for. Hot Fuel is about accountability.

    In northern regions, temperature compensation is commonly used by retailers to warm the fuel so as to make sure the consumer is not getting MORE than he or she has paid for. Yet when the consumers demand it works both ways, Big Oil says “No, we can’t do that.”

    Big Oil claims prices are high because supply is low. However they’ve had RECORD profits during the last several quarters.

    Does anyone smell a rat? A big oily rat?

    Hot Fuel won’t only affect how much you pay for fuel you put in your personal vehicle; commercial trucks get a tank full of it at the pump, too. That equals lower MPGs when they’re hauling cargo. When the cost to haul the cargo goes up, the price of the cargo typically goes up to offset the added expense. It’s a vicious cycle.

    No, temperature compensation isn’t going to have a tremendous impact on your wallet or mine right away. But when it comes to taking on big corporations who think they’re so huge and powerful they can just screw us over for poos and giggles and greed, we have to start somewhere and tell them we’ve had enough.

    Hot Fuel is a widespread and proven source of Big Oil’s habit of ripping off the consumer. Installing temperature compensation technology is NOT the impossible and unaffordable task they claim it to be. I’m just saying, it’s a start.

    While you might view it as a pointless effort, I view it as a baby-step in the right directon toward holding these corporations accountable for their dishonest business practices.

  • August 10, 2007 at 1:59 am
    ManBearPig says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “if not man, then who is to blame, Ray? We’re having weather patterns here in the Msissouri Valley that are unlike anything I have ever seen”

    It’s obvious: global cooling is causing those patterns. In the 1970’s all agreed that we were heading into a new Ice Age so we must be in one right now.

  • August 10, 2007 at 2:15 am
    Ray says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “if not man, then who” – why must we assign the blame to anything other than a natural occurence? Most of the US was at one time under water (where do you think fossils come from?) and then there was that great ice sheet from the last big ice age. What happened a couple of hundred thousand years ago at the last hot spell? Was man to blame for that? No way.

    Much of the Sahara desert was at one time green with rivers – when it began to turn to desert, man was forced out of Africa to begin the move of mankind to the rest of the world.

  • August 10, 2007 at 2:26 am
    Ned says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Who’s to blame? How about our only source of heat – the SUN! There is also evidence of global warming on Mars and there are no men there.

  • August 10, 2007 at 2:38 am
    Conspiracy Theory says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Want to bet Gore owns stock in one or more of the following:

    solar panel maufacturer

    recycling plant

    nickel or lithium mining (for hybrid car batteries)

    alternative fuel corporations

    I disagree with Wild Bill Kelso, you all are not morons. But I do agree with him that we should follow the money. Gore has some secret vested interest in global warming. It’s just a matter of figuring out what it is. We already know what ExxonMobile’s interest is – profit.

    I’m sure Gore has business names and DBAs to hide the paper trail leading to his personal interests in the “Living Green” industry, but I would bet my pinkie toe those links exist.

    Gore is just like everyone else on Capitol Hill. He is in it for the money and motivated first and foremost by GREED.

  • August 10, 2007 at 2:44 am
    PROOF says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    PASSAGE FROM WIKIPEDIA –
    The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago.[18] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.[19]

    But as some of you scholars point out, man does not and cannot have an impact on global warming or the greenhouse effect. CO2 and CH4 levels may not be the highest they have ever been, but they sure seem to be rising very quickly, and that should concern us all.

  • August 10, 2007 at 3:28 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You do know how info makes its way to Wikipedia, right?

    And those cited references… do you know who funded that research?

    How is a Wikipedia reference proof of anything?

    Just because there are some numbers and references doesn’t mean the research was valid or unbiased.

    That’s been my whole point… how do we know WHO to believe??? There are so many “scientific studies” that are in direct opposition to each other.

    Clearly we’re not getting the whole, true story.

    Unfortunately, most of us don’t have the extra time to go get a degree in chemistry, physics and geology in order to perform the studies ourselves.

    Don’t believe everything you read. Especially from Wikipedia. It can be a good source for information during a trivia game and it has even been a good starting point for more serious research, but I would never base my school of thought on a particular subject from something I read there. But that’s just my opinion.

    Since no one seems to have the truth about global warming, all we’ve got right now are opinions.

    Again, do what you can not to be wasteful… but don’t go bonkers thinking the sky is falling.

    The earth has gone through temperature changes since the beginning, that much we know. Theories have shown those temperature changes have happened over periods of hundreds or thousands of years. Whether or not we mere humans can have a significant impact (positive or negative) on those temperatures remains to be seen.

  • August 10, 2007 at 3:28 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Did I hear somewhere that there are more forests in the U.S. now than ever? South America and other continents may be different, but that was my impression. We do need to take measures to use less of everything a pollute less in every way. That’s pretty simple to see. What we don’t need to do is destroy the world economy to satisfy a questionable computer simulation. I have heard global warming described as the new age religion. That sounds about right to me based on some of the quotes I see from the true believers. Just my uninformed opinion.

  • August 10, 2007 at 3:42 am
    RAL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have read several articles on the tilting of the Earth’s Axis and changing of this tilt to contribute to the change in weather. I know of a couple of ship captains who believe that this is so, because the navigation of the direction of travel has changed a few degrees in the last 50 or so years. They believe this contributes to the change of temperatures.

    If interested, check this article out.
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html

  • August 10, 2007 at 3:43 am
    HawaiiDuke888 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    He flies in private jets, his own home uses 22 times the power of the average American. He tells people to ride a bike, yet I have yet to see him ride a bike. He says asinine things about the President, he doesn’t even respect the office he was a part of. Google image search these two and see what you come out with:
    1. “Bush bike riding”
    2. “Gore bike riding”

  • August 10, 2007 at 3:57 am
    I remember says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I so well remember the mid-1970’s (well, not real well, just sorta well – well, you get the point).

    What I do remember is what was being preached by the politicians and conservationists back then – they were predicting a coming ice age; due mainly to the fact that the winters had gotten colder and harsher than in memory.

    That’s just 30 years ago. Everything fluctuates, the temperature, the insurance market, my weight, etc.

  • August 10, 2007 at 4:03 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wait a minute everyone! Why are you giving Prof. Gore a bad time? Don’t you all remember that this is the man that invented the Internet? If he is so smart that he was able to invent such a wonderful thing as the Internet, I have to believe every word that comes out of his mouth.

  • August 10, 2007 at 4:04 am
    Correct Wing Nut says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maladictus Maximumus

    You are correct, we must stop all pollution now 100% is our only option. Lets start with you, please cease and desist from the following actions:
    1) Turn off your air conditioner. Freon is made of chemicals that pollute the air (Chlorine, the main ingredient, will destroy the ozone)
    2) Do not use your auto. Please reference “Earth in the Balance” for reasons.
    3) Please refrain from eating any food purchased form stores, as they contain wrappers that must be disgarded.
    4) Please refrain from going number one or two. Our sewer systems are overwhelmed.
    5) Do not purchase ANY item made of plastic. Have you ever seen the chemical equation for plastic. Some plastics take 10,000 years or more to degrade.

    Thank you for your understanding.

  • August 10, 2007 at 4:18 am
    HawaiiDuke888 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The Ice Age??? Let’s not stop with that, along with the ozone hole there have been a number of looney left pets of the past. Truth is, it is a religion for them, the way they dry to indocrinate their followers is make it like a religion that needs to have a following. That is why they hate religion so much, because people can’t be a part of the Christian Church and a follower of Al Gore at the same time. Being involved in two beliefs will conflict each other. By the way, because of the failures of Global Warming to happen, the looney left has changed it to “climate change.” Don’t worry, it will eventually fade away and something else will replace it.

  • August 10, 2007 at 6:50 am
    LLH says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The problem is, there are waaay too many sheep out there just waiting to be led. I was impressed to see so many of you can actually think for yourselves and not believe everything you read. (Just because it is in print does not make it so.)

  • August 11, 2007 at 6:58 am
    adjusterjoe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Proof:

    Seems like I heard where algore has a vested interest in the orgaization that plays games with energy by buying and selling credits so you can feel good about your energy consumption and continue to waste without guilt. Somehow these energy credits let you claim to be environmentally friendly regardless of your eneregy habits.

  • August 12, 2007 at 2:04 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    everyone knows that GORE is actually a politician. he did not invent the internet. he did not discover the ozone. he thinks that the world is warming due to MAN’s construction. in reality, what happened to evolution of the thought process? look at this statement “warned the cause of global warming is “very likely” man-made”. sounds like a political term very likely? that to me sounds a glass that is half empty or half full. we can all make figures do what we are asking for unless it’s 99-100%, and of course, nothing is truly 100%. if you look at the antartic and seen the discovery channel about the iceshelves that are breaking up? u would think we are going through a warming zone. but they have done some analysis on the ice cores and have actually found that the earth has been through three ice ages! of tilt theory, might be real! think about the heat wave that happened in IDAHO. tropics are not very busy yet (not very many storms or hurricanes). I agree, we can help fix the greenhouse gases by stop reducing our forest. soon man will be needing to learn how to colonize another world, even possibly build cities under the water. i think sometimes we jump when a politician says something and then when we follow-up — he actually is blowing wind or smoke. so where do we go from here? good question! but first, let’s not follow a politician whom claims he invented the internet. afterall, was he not in the white house as a vice-president when the internet really took off?

  • August 13, 2007 at 9:22 am
    El Squid says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My girlfriend is a college student and she was required to take an environmental science course. She was a believer in the man-made global warming theory. The instructor gave the class an assignment to compile evidence that we are all going to drown, fry, or otherwise die due to mankind caused global warming.

    Unlike the rest of the class, she researched both sides of the issue much to the chagrin of her instructor who is a full blown green weenie.At fist he wasn’t going to accept her paper because it totally contradicted his political beliefs and leftist philosophies about the evils of capitalism.

    To the instructor’s credit, he did take the time to look into her sources of information and ultimately agreed that the global warming movement is largely politically motivated. He also admitted that the mainstream press and many educators ignore valid scientific opinion that contradicts algore and his minions. He even admitted that there is no concensus among qualified experts that mankind is responsible in any way for global warming.

    My girlfiend got an “A” for her paper and the instructor read it out loud to the whole class as an example of objective scientific research.

    IJ readers on both sides of this controversy should do their own research and not just look at articles or websites that support their current beliefs. Look at both sides and then draw conclusions.

  • August 13, 2007 at 11:56 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    we’ve just become a bunch of air-conditioned weenies? When I lived in Japan (where the humidity is unbearable), i lived without a car and walked to and from work everyday, walked anytime i needed to go grocery shopping, walked everytime I ran errands…you get the point. so i became used to the heat…i won’t lie, it was uncomfortable at times, but i dealt with it. now that i’m back in the states….i would say i average about 5 minutes in the heat….long enough to get from my air conditioned home to my air conditioned car to my air conditioned office and back.

    so now when it’s 97 degrees (which i’ve lived through hotter summers than this in nebraska), it is RIDICULOUSLY hard for me to want to be outside on the weekends. i forgo walks outside and head to my airconditioned gym…

    do you see my point? of course it feels as though it is getting hotter because we continually spend less time in it.

    and i’m sorry Ohio, but a little over 100 degrees is not enough to convince me…it’s the dog days of summer, what else would you expect.

    Now, if it were 120 degrees every day for a month, you may grab my attention.

  • August 13, 2007 at 1:50 am
    Pennsylvanian says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well I think in addition to people spending less time in heat they are also more obese. Yet perhaps people are more hydrated than in the past?

    As for AC, if luxuries are available cheaply people will spring for them if they can.

    It reminds me of a Chris Rock joke (bear with me I don’t remember the exact wording): If you wanna stop gun violence just make a bullet cost $5,000. If a bullet costed $5,000 you’d have no more innocent bystanders. If I wanted to kill you I’ll save up, get a second job, and in 6 months you a dead man.

    And the same goes for more environmentally sound activities/items/purchases. If things that hurt the environment are cheap there will be little inclination for people to change. But as we saw with the spike in Oil and Gas prices, when the price for items that hurt the environment are more expensive there will be a concerted effort on the part of society as a whole to cutback.

    The societal drive behind environmental conservation will probably based more on the economical value of being environmentally friendly rather than the altruism which drives the environmentalist community.

  • August 13, 2007 at 2:58 am
    Ned says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s a nice theory but driving behavior based on gas prices doesn’t support it. With gas prices doubling after Katrina, driving was not dramatically reduced.

    And I’d rather not exchange capitalism for government set prices. And that’s what it would take to make things cost more for perceived environmental benefits.

  • August 13, 2007 at 2:59 am
    Conspiracy Theory says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hybrids cost far more than their fuel-efficient counterparts. So I don’t know how the theory of “make environmentally unsound luxuries more expensive” will work there.

    Plus, the production of hybrids and their batteries does far more harm to the environment than driving and maintaining a used economy car. Of course, that isn’t advertised much, is it? Not a great selling point I suppose.

    This environment thing is political. Just a new label on the same old money machine.

    I agree with the whole “don’t trash the planet” thing. That’s about all I agree with when it comes to this global warming business. And it IS a business.

    Al Gore and his carbon credit stuff is pure crap. Seriously, he should sell that junk on a late-night infomercial and when you buy carbon credits in the store, there should be a “As Seen On TV!” logo stamped on the box… which I’m sure will NOT have been made from recycled paper.

    Rubbish.

  • August 13, 2007 at 3:43 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think you all may have read too much into what I was saying…i wasn’t talking about usage rates and then comparing that to the fact that gas prices didn’t slow people down…i was simply referring to all of the people bi$%*ing about how hot it is…That the reason we think it’s getting so much hotter isn’t due to the fact that it actually is any hotter than it was say 30-40 years ago, but it’s just people spend less time outside and more time inside in air conditioned environments.

  • August 13, 2007 at 4:03 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    so, let me make a clarification. we think its hotter because — we stay inside more than we did 30-40 yrs ago?…that cud be a good assumption, in fact, if we look at the temperature from that time frame to now, i bet you find that the average temp has changed. so it’s not due to the fact we spend more time in an a/c space. in fact there are folks (like the plains of africa) whereas those folks have never seen a/c but are affected by the extreme heat. so the assumption that we think it’s hotter in fact is not based on a/c but on the actual conditions of the earth and the temp readings we take by meteoroligists…um um…um…um…

    so before u think we like it comfortable and that means its hotter, infact, we like comfortable, because it can mean staying alive in most cases due to extreme heat…
    do we rely on a/c, why yes! do we like being comfortable, YES! but does that mean we are the creators of the heat wave? NO! do we contribute to it? Possibly. there is no evidence 100% linking that issue, just assumptions.

  • August 13, 2007 at 4:11 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have a little problem with what you are saying. if i read you right, you contradicted yourself…places that do have extreme (plains of africa) do NOT have air conditioning yet air conditioning is what keeps those in extreme conditions alive?

    I’m sorry, but 97 degree weather at the beginning of August in Nebraska…not exactly death defying to stay alive….if i keep well hydrated and sought shade, pretty sure i could make it.

    FYI – i’m just presenting this thought as a conversation piece….not my own life philosophy…i LOVE my air conditioner.

  • August 17, 2007 at 3:25 am
    hth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Some facts to think about: though temps have been measured for only the last 200 years, scientist proved the earth has been “warming” for the past 18,000 years. Over that time weather has run through cycles of average hotter and colder annual temps mainly due to the earth’s orbit aruond the sun and the gravitational pull of other solar objects (planets) on the earth. In that time, sea levels have risen about 400 ft. at the current rate of rise in teh sea level (1.8 milimeters per year) it would take 3,400 years for the sea level to rise 20 ft; the amount Gore states is necessary to wipe out our coast-line.

    Also, even if we – the USA – cut CO2 production in half, we would not put a dent in the CO2 levels, and it would likely rise becuase India and China output of CO2 is growing 10-fold.

    Question: is it possible that the warming causes the increase in CO2 and not the other way around?

  • August 19, 2007 at 8:01 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    so, tell me….if it’s the co2, what are we expending as a human being? does that mean we can’t have any more children? does that mean, we need to find another planet to colonize? if co2 is the reason, why are we taking away our resources that can use it? rainforest are a major resource of not only scrubbing the air of CO2, but also generating O2. what happens when we don’t stop? how will the water regenerate the O2, if we don’t have any to give? but as previous posts have said, we have been warming and cooling for over 18,000 yrs. seriously, let’s look at keeping our forests, especially the rainforests. they have unique animals, many of which have not been discovered. they are major producers of O2 and scrubbers of CO2.

  • August 20, 2007 at 7:53 am
    hth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If there was any ambiguity in my statements, I apologize. My point is and I think you (wudcheck) would agree, people like Gore and Leo Dicaprio (environmental expert??) should get off the CO2 kick and focus on more important issues: lake of fresh water causing millions of deaths a year, deforstation of the rainforest, and in underdeveloped nations: sanitation, fresh water, health care and education.

  • August 20, 2007 at 8:06 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    CONCUR — 100%…too many other issues that need immediate attention….

  • October 14, 2007 at 10:40 am
    notrustintheprez says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The oceans/seas are the largest producer of CO2 and cattle BURP methane, not fart it.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*