Originally Posted by QuiGon

Bullcrap. The right makes plenty of points to refute the content of Algore's Inconvenient Lie... Pointing out his own hypocrisy (which you seem to consider a "personal attack") is just good entertainment value.

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Q, I've read a couple things you've had to say on the global warming matter. It's funny how nothing really excites someone on the right so much as a growing scientific consensus against which to rail.

I don't get it. The majority of scientists in the world agree on the global warming phenomenon. The majority agree the climate is changing. The majority agree that industrial activities do fuel an affect which contributes.

The only difficulty is that to prove it to the extent required by the extreme right, you first have to destroy the climate entirely, to prove that the effect is happening at all.

The measureables support climate change, Q. Please tell me you're not arguing that. The extent of man's involvement is very probably to blame for our warming trend, in whole or in part.

But even man's activity is only one part of the problem, we can certainly avoid acting in a way that aids and abets our enemies, the sunspots. Or whatever the extreme right believes causes global warming this week.

By the way, did those guys ever find Iraq's nukes?

PFnV

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

As the Clintons would say: "It's the hypocrisy, stupid."


//

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

If an entire state of Tennessee legalized the dumping of motor oil down sewer drains, and everyone was doing it, including Al Gore, but Al Gore said that he was against doing such a thing and it was bad for the rivers, soil and groundwater, but Al Gore was still doing it and someone filmed him doing it...does that mean no one was doing it and that it wasn't a bad thing that everyone in Tennessee was dumping motor oil down the storm drains?

A famous or popular individual being a hyppocrit about something doesn't change the facts of the issue. What difference does Al Gore's activity have to do with the science of global climatology?

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

At the very least AlGore should pay somebody to read his lines (if, indeed, they are his own) because his credibility is taking major hits, day by day. He looks like he's trying to get rolling start on the '08 elections, and the more he pretends he's not, the less attractive as a candidate he becomes.


//

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

I for one love the focus on smearing Gore, since he's not running for anything. Of course, the trouble is that Republicans just sharpen their knives on whoever's handy, and go into overdrive when the campaign starts. Could you imagine how they'd get clobbered if the ad hom rules of bulletin boards applied to presidential elections?

PFnV

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Oh, you mean like Barack's 1984 video on Hillary. Yep. The "politics of destruction" are a baitch, ain't they? But killing a sitting president in the midst of a war is just fine with you because "you know best". Kerry, Fonda, Michelle Moore and Ed Asner told you so. Yep. Got your number.


//