Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Skeptic? See a video clip of Inhofe’s Q&A with Gore and judge for yourself what his motives are …

‘He is going to all this trouble because he is sure that if the people understand the problem, they will be able to fix it.’

Explain why he refused to sign a pledge to use the same amount of BAD energy as the average american… I thought he understands the problem???
As long as he doesn’t have to move to a smaller house! Or put a windmill in HIS backyard!

‘Criticizing Mr. Gore’s claims of a “planetary emergency” as misleading and alarmist, Senator Inhofe, a Republican of Oklahoma, sought to make a spectacle out of Mr. Gore’s much-hyped visit to the Senate. He confronted the former Democratic presidential nominee with skepticism about global warming and even demanded that Mr. Gore take a pledge not to consume more energy in his home than the average American household.

Mr. Gore did not return fire. He did not respond directly to the pledge but insisted that he and his wife, Tipper, live a “carbon neutral life.” The proposal follows stories questioning the energy efficiency of Mr. Gore’s Tennessee mansion.’
‘Congress Hears Gore on Global Warming’

‘Carbon Neutral’ means he pays to pollute.

Where’s the transcript?
You are leaving out the inconvenient truth.

Steve K, I love that clip of Sen Boxer giving Inhofe a much deserved smackdown! The problem that I see clearly isn’t that Inhofe is just a skeptic, the real problem is that he’s an assh*)e who just doesn’t care, no matter what the facts might be. But, as that clip demonstrates so well, that rude, dismissive, constantly interruptive Fox”News” style of GOP debate is now a thing of the past — at least in the Congress. Republicans like Inhofe and many others don’t seem to want to acknowledge that they aren’t the majority at the moment — so I guess we’ll need to keep reminding them.

How do we get the rest of the world to comply? The U. S. is small in comparison to China and India for polution and the people problem. I’m very much skeptical about all this global warming hype.

So…. NOW being the majority makes them right??
You are funny.

“So…. NOW being the majority makes them right??”

Are you talking about the large majority of respected scientists who agree that global warming is taking place? Or are you talking about the Democratic majority in Congress?
If you’re talking about Congress, then yes, absolutely. Democrats demanding that everyone must be polite enough to let someone finish their answer after being asked a question, rather than be rudely interrupted, makes us right.
Personally I think it’s a shame that so many rightwingers need to learn their manners from Congressional Democrats, when it’s something your mothers should have taught you at a very early age.

I like Al Gore when he is himself. He has a great wife (Tipper), or at least seams to. I didn’t like him in 2000, as it seemed he had too many consultants.

On global warming Al Gore has done what I would expect a politician to do. He is exagerating and profiting. The ocean isn’t going to rise 20 feet but 2 feet in the next 100 years according to the consensus scientific report. That is fine. It makes sense to me that we should reduce what a politician says by 90%. (It sure would have helped us in Iraq if we had reduced what Bush said by 90%!!)

Then of course Al Gore is making money off of off sets.

I am not buying into this Global Warming destructive thing just yet. I read about a scientist in London who in 1864 predicted in 1964 that London would be under 10 feet of horse manure. (He couldn’t forsee automobiles!). I think we should all go back to 1907 and see how much the world has changed and think about what science would predict about today.

With all of that being said, Al Gore has brought environmentalism back to the front of line. This planet so far is our only home and we need to keep it clean. For getting our environment back on the congressional agenda I give Al credit.

Craig

NOBODY should be allowed to NOT answer questions and use up all the time alotted for questions
- on either side.

OPEN CORRUPTION IN DEM PARTY

News Flash, democrats using massive pork spending in must pass defense bill to buy democrat anti war votes.

This is the fiscal responsibility we were promised? This is the “end of corruption” we were promised, Democratic party leaders BUYING the votes of their own party with massive pork spending?

The party of massive spending and open corruption is back in power. And all you on the left can do is cover up for them now, no more promises of balanced budgets, responsibility, end to corruption….now you ARE the CORRUPT, Deficit Spending party in power.

As I said before the elections, if they get in, democrats will start spending massive pork bills to assure they maintain power in 08 and that they would not balance the budget nor take us on a path to a balanced budget.

And look at where we are at. They refused to reduce government spending…after campaigning on the “fact” that the Republicans were spending too much. And now they are stuffing pork into a must pass defense bill…and doing so not only to buy votes from the voters but doing it to bribe democrat congressmen to vote for an anti War bill they would otherwise not vote for.

Talk about your “culture of corruption”…the democrats are here and they brought their culture of corruption with them.

And liberals dare not speak against it…but if Reublicans were doing it…they would be SCREAMING about the open corruption demanding jail time, etc etc.

It’s the sun boys. Read up on it. This will be the “shocking” conclusion of the future, you are hearing it here, now. And in the New York Times.

Link to Article: It’s the Sun!

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=258678873299154

I like the guy who said the poor don’t have enough money to pay to fix global warming. Um, what?!

Stephen,
First, I suggest you read the National Geographic article on Martian climate cited in your link:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

The NG article mentions this theory presented by one scientist who is way outside the mainstream, and lacks the data to back up his unsupported theory.

As for solar irradiance as a cause of Global Warming (and Paul, really, Climate Change is a more accurate term than Global Warming, even if it lacks the cache), see the following article:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

To concede a point, the effect of solar irradiation is not well understood. The estimates I have seen suggest that solar irradiance accounts for 0 - 25 % of the warming we have seen.

In any event, adding greenhouse gases on top of a (possibly) warming sun seems like a terrible idea.

Paul, Good post.
Ya know Im not real smart when it comes to science but I do know that if you shut your garage door and leave your car running it wont take long to see what the problem is. I would like to suggest to all the naysayers that perhaps overnite in a garage with the car engine running will educate you on the perils of carbon in the atmosphere. Just an idea, but dont beleive me, try it for yourself.

Explain why he refused to sign a pledge to use the same amount of BAD energy as the average american

Gore uses renewable energy and so consumes less BAD energy than the average American.

As I said before the elections, if they get in, democrats will start spending massive pork bills

That’s not happening. You keep saying that, but never back it up with facts. Everything they’ve done so far has been in accordance with the pay-as-you-go rules they reinstated.

Good article Paul. I’d just like to remind everyone that it would only cost $78 per family to avert this environmental crash.

Antarctic melting may be speeding up

I guess it shows what a flimsy argument the global warming doubters have left, if the best they can do is to hold up a picture of icicles (as Inhofe did) and accuse Gore of contributing to a problem that they won’t even acknowledge exists. Shooting the messenger may be fun, but it has no logical validity.

I hope the Okies are proud of their Senator.

bugcrazy,

You missed the critical detail. Inhofe’s “pledge” wasn’t about using BAD energy. It was about using ANY KIND of energy. And Inhofe cut Gore off as Gore started to explain why that was an innapropriate comparison.

Adrienne,
Inhofe was not a “skeptic.” He was, rather, just what you say. He offered a “pledge” that is about energy use, not pollution and tried to frame his point around that. Then when Gore tries to explain that that is not the issue, he cuts him off. Then Inhofe complains about not having enough time. For Inhofe, it wasn’t about asking questions. It was about Inhofe making an irrelevent political attack on the witness and then complaining that he didn’t answer his question as the time runs out.

Good article Paul. I’d just like to remind everyone that it would only cost $78 per family to avert this environmental crash.

AP,
I get a figure closer to $100, but those are the perils of the economics today. What is baffling about this debate is the way conservatives become all gung-ho about the added cost on people to go carbon neutral, but don’t raise an eyebrow when the average joe has has to dish out several times that much more annually to fill his car’s tank since Bush became president.

Steve K:

Are you guys sure about that $100.00 figure? That is only $30 Billion.

This is no really planet emergency that costs that little.

Pass a bill, write a check done.

That number cannot be right.

Craig

Craig,

There are various carbon offset calculators out there. Here is one that I am familiar with:

http://carbonfund.org/site/pages/calculator/

What that money buys is generally a subsidy for the price differential between e.g., coal and wind.

To, e.g., build a new wind plant will require a capital investment. My guess is that is not part of the equation.

But then, for fairness, you have to also factor in the capital replacement costs when a coal plant has to be retired.