Global Warming

[diesel96]

I’d love for someone to tell me when was the precise moment that environmental conservation flipped from being a conservative value to a liberal one. Protection for the environment would seem relitive to the title "conservative"—apt to conserve ones resources, ones traditions, resistant to change. What could be more conservative than acting to preserve and protect and, when necessary, restore the environment? The greatest environmentalist ever to serve as President of the U.S. was conservative icon Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt did it himself, with the stroke of his pen, because he thought it the just and responsible thing to do.
If you dropped from Mars onto the American scene, nothing would seem more natural than to assume that environmentalism would be a conservative enthusiasm. Among other obvious things, conservative and conservatism share the same grass roots definition with conservation and conservationism, and while conservationism and environmentalism may not be identical, they are clearly blood relatives.

For the religious non-believers,the stories of the Bible contain a great deal of wisdom and truth, as do those older myths from other cultures, but to look to the Bible for a scientific understanding of the way the world works is absurd. Why can’t we look to religion for our spiritual needs, and look to science for our more practical concerns? For many religious people, especially the most zealous and devout, reconciling their faith with science is sacrilege. Fortunetly, not all religious conservatives feel that way. Some are behaving reasonably and prudently, and joining with scientists to raise awareness of global warming and encourage measures to fight it.

 

[Sammie]

Some are behaving reasonably and prudently, and joining with scientists to raise awareness of global warming and encourage measures to fight it.

You want scientists, Diesel, we'll give you scientists.

Michael Crichton is a scientist, writer and filmmaker. His latest book, "State of Fear", explains in detail the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and professor of
meteorology at MIT, known for his research in dynamic meteorology and atmospheric waves. He's is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen often speaks out against the notion that Global Warming is caused by humans.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia gives a great assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they're pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding such public attention."

Carter also states that Gore's activism, "Is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is based on junk science."

Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified last year before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, stating that "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology at the University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is very misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It's not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records. The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

But who listens?

And in the mean time, the public hangs onto every word that comes out of a politician's mouth. Despite the fact that the majority of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. They're hardly scientists and are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens our planet. But this use of fear and hysteria makes it tough to make rational decisions.

 

[wkmac]

Patrick Moore, co-founder of GreenPeace and now head of GreenSpirit speaks out on the issue of Deforestation and CO2 Greenhouse gas as it relates to the whole issue of timber and the timber industry. Interesting comments from someone who has been on the frontlines and who also help to start the "Green" movement as we know it today.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/...l?id=67623834-a1af-42e4-91cb-28492a462651&p=1

BTW: In all the talk from Al Gore and others about enviro concerns, why have none mentioned a concept advocated very well I might add by the late actor Dennis Weaver and which still lives on today in what is called, Earthships? Goggle the term on the net and see what people are doing and what is already possible. Also when in Barnes and Noble, Borders or whatever, check the magazine rack for an excellent publication IMO called Home Power. With Home Power and other type magazines I've made changes in our home with nothing more than items found at any Home Depot, Lowes, etc. and although still on the Grid (hoping to change that in a few more years) with nearly 3k feet of living space and 2 central HVAC systems (1 upstairs and 1 downstairs) my recent electric bill with numerous 100 plus degree days never broke $100 a month and that with the thermostat set at 68 degrees at night. I like sleeping in the same place you can hang meat! LOL! Actually with super insulation, once the thermostat resets to 78 at 7 am, the system never comes back on until around 7 to 9 pm so I avoid system use during peak demand hours.

We cook with gas and have 6 people in the house but with a tankless waterheater that mounts outside the house and a manifold distribution system I designed and built myself, our monthly gas bills never break $40 in summer and my high in winter is a $60 to $70 one. On average, my combined gas/electric together in never more than $150 per month. There are even more savings out there that I'm working on but the point is you can save lots of money but at the same time help the environmental situation and help the nation with a better energy policy.

These folks were a huge help with tons of ideas and even on site examples of what works and doesn't.
http://www.southface.org/

 

[diesel96]

You want scientists, Diesel, we'll give you scientists.

Michael Crichton is a scientist, writer and filmmaker. His latest book, "State of Fear", explains in detail the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

[Diesel96]
This book is under the FICTION-HORROR section listed in Amazon.com
Crichton practises as an aurthor now a days.Makes huge pay offs with his fictional books.

[Sammie}
Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and professor of
meteorology at MIT, known for his research in dynamic meteorology and atmospheric waves. He's is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen often speaks out against the notion that Global Warming is caused by humans.

[Diesel96]
Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.
Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#Criticism_of_IPCC

[Sammie]
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia gives a great assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they're pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding such public attention."
Carter also states that Gore's activism, "Is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is based on junk science."

[Diesel96]
Professer Bob Carter also funded by Exxon -Mobil

[Sammie]
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified last year before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, stating that "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

[Diesel96]
Professer Tim Patterson also funded by Exxon-Mobil

[Sammie}
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology at the University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

[Diesel96]
Dr Boris Winterhalter=Geologist not a climatetologist
Australian department where he's just an "Adjunct" professor

[Sammie]
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is very misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It's not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records. The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

[Diesel96]
Not only is Dr Roy Spencer a hard right christian, but he's also funded by Exxon-Mobil.
"Being in the minority is difficult," Dr Roy Spencer says, adding that while he now earns a small amount of money writing for TCS Daily, a Web site funded in part by ExxonMobil, "I have always said, if you want to make money in this business, the skeptics' side is not the side you want to work on."


[Sammie]
But who listens?

And in the mean time, the public hangs onto every word that comes out of a politician's mouth. Despite the fact that the majority of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. They're hardly scientists and are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens our planet. But this use of fear and hysteria makes it tough to make rational decisions.

[Diesel96]
How bout naming a scientist who's not paid off by an oil conglomerate.
For every petroleum funded scientist you refer to their are tenfold independent scientist who will rebuddle. Don't underestimate the public's intelligence and attention to world renoun non-bias scienctific opininon, not just politicians.The use of fear and hysteria? How about the use of money and greed and agenda!

 

[Sammie]

[Diesel96]
How bout naming a scientist who's not paid off by an oil conglomerate.
For every petroleum funded scientist you refer to their are tenfold independent scientist who will rebuddle. Don't underestimate the public's intelligence and attention to world renoun non-bias scienctific opininon, not just politicians.The use of fear and hysteria? How about the use of money and greed and agenda![/quote]

You say tomato, I say tomahto. There's just no convincing you Diesel,
that Global Warming is horse****.

There's no proof of it, in fact the proof is actually against it and even if there was global warming, it's not man made. Nature itself is self polluting. Volcanoes give off more pollution then man ever could.

Thirty years ago these same alarmists were warning us about a serious upcoming ice age. And now you liberals are buying into Al Gore and his bucket of Kool Aid. Congrats on making Al Gore rich by buying his movie, BTW, and CARBON CREDITS!! Please...

And in geological terms, we've actually been checking this issue out for maybe a fraction of a nanosecond. Let's just see who's right in a million years or so...

When you have a spare 74 minutes, check out the "Great Global Warming Swindle" listed below, which was created by scientists, economists, politicians and writers who state that Global Warming is a scam and a lie:

So Diesel, you just keep on goose stepping in that Chicken Little and the Sky is Falling Parade of yours. To quote Albert Einstein -

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice."

 

[diesel96]

Climate scientist ‘duped to deny global warming’
A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.​

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. ‘I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,’ he said. ‘This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.’ He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator. - Guardian
Professor Wunsch said: “I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled.”

Martin Durkin (television director)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martin Durkin is a television producer and director, most notably of television documentaries for Channel 4 in Britain. Many of his documentaries have caused consistent controversies. He is understood to have once been closely involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party and its later offshoots Living Marxism (or LM magazine) and Spiked, a magazine and associated political network which promotes libertarian views, and is critical of environmentalism.

When it comes to science, I'll trust realtime scientist with no political, or Religious ties, and no affilliations with Oil,Logging,or Polluting Corperations. And certaintly don't trust a Marxist Communist wacked out Director. And before your Rt wing friends start freaking out and yelling at me that I got my head up Al Gore's butt, I never even seen his movie. Someone who loves his country,nature and the Earth should all take notice with an open mind, not a political mind. Why am I a Liberal because I want to conserve the Earth? And why don't Conservatives want to conserve? This is linguistically puzzling.
BTW...I feel for all the Olympic Athletes participating in Beijing,China. I here the Air Quality is 5x worse than the harmful levels are here in the states. Some countries are taking precautions with extra breathing apparatuses and extra DR.'s..I guess it's just nature and volcanos over there blowing off a little steam.​

 

[tieguy]

If this scientist can be so easily duped then perhaps he's really not that sharp and should be ignored as a expert on any subject.

 

[Sammie]

Ok, I'm hangin' up the gloves on this one. You knocked me out cold in round four Diesel, and I almost didn't come to.

The North and South poles are melting, enormous portions of the planet are withering away with drought, scores of species are at risk, and America's oil addiction is worse than it's drug addiction.

Veterans asbestos lawyer Gerald Maples readies his class-action Mississippi-based litigation against oil companies for causing Katrina.

Former Department of Energy official Joseph Romm blames global warming for the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Because it had been warm in Minnesota.

In fact, taxes are in place,laws are being passed,companies are altering data and figures to their benefit, (don't forget about Enron) and alternative solutions are being created as we speak.

And what's up with these lying, thieving climatologists and historians? Imagine them trying to feed us this bull that climates change over time. Yeah. That Egypt was once green and plush. And now it's a desert. Right. That glaciers were once below the state of Michigan. Please. And that the North Pole once had grass (indicating that weren't always glaciers on the North Pole). Enough Already!

HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND????

 

[satellitedriver]

We can all be duped,
Silly me, when I picked up a fossil clam shell on top of a hill in southcentral Texas(which I still have) my uncle told me that this area was under the sea millions of years ago and that the hills were all limestone left over from the shells.
Working in the coal mines in Texas, I was amazed to see 61 million year old trees fossilized a 100 ft underground.
61 million yrs ago, it was a swamp.
The beautiful red mountains of Sedona, Az are a reminant of ancient sea shores.
The rain forest of Brazil did not exist 2,500 yrs ago.
The Isitmus(sp) of Pamama rose up and changed ocean flow. Creating the Gulf Stream ,which turn the warm waters up the eastern coast of North America and started a "global warming" effect that melted the polar ice. ectetera, ecetera...
The biggest duping,IMHO, is the homo-centric view of the importance of man on this earth.
Analogy;
Man is just an ant screwing an elephant, yelling "Suffer Baby suffer!!!"
It makes the ant feel good about himself.
PAX

 

[moreluck]

Don't forget about ancient Lake Bonneville. There can be seashells found in the benches of the Wasatch Mountains in Utah......mountains once under a huge lake.

 

[diesel96]

Ok, I'm hangin' up the gloves on this one. You knocked me out cold in round four Diesel, and I almost didn't come to.

The North and South poles are melting, enormous portions of the planet are withering away with drought, scores of species are at risk, and America's oil addiction is worse than it's drug addiction.

Veterans asbestos lawyer Gerald Maples readies his class-action Mississippi-based litigation against oil companies for causing Katrina.

Former Department of Energy official Joseph Romm blames global warming for the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Because it had been warm in Minnesota.

In fact, taxes are in place,laws are being passed,companies are altering data and figures to their benefit, (don't forget about Enron) and alternative solutions are being created as we speak.

And what's up with these lying, thieving climatologists and historians? Imagine them trying to feed us this bull that climates change over time. Yeah. That Egypt was once green and plush. And now it's a desert. Right. That glaciers were once below the state of Michigan. Please. And that the North Pole once had grass (indicating that weren't always glaciers on the North Pole). Enough Already!

HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND????

Ghostbusters - Mass Hysteria

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I've got two words that apply to most of the scientists that are pushing the man made global warming issue.......GRANT MONEY!!!

Until there is proof, and a consensus among the scientists that the proof is actually proof and not just a hypothesis, man made global warming will continue to be a myth.

 

[Jones]

And that the North Pole once had grass (indicating that weren't always glaciers on the North Pole).

I'm curious as to where you heard this, because there is no land mass at the north pole. No glaciers either. It's just ice. Take away the ice and all you have is the Arctic ocean.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

The article below shows that the global warming crowd still has a long way to go before there is a "consensus."

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

 

[satellitedriver]

I'm curious as to where you heard this, because there is no land mass at the north pole. No glaciers either. It's just ice. Take away the ice and all you have is the Arctic ocean.

It wasn't always underwater.
When the Russians dropped their flag on the sea floor at the North Pole a couple weeks ago, it was to try and lay claim to the oil and gas reserves that is believed to be there.
There could not be oil there, unless at one time organic vegetation was growing there.
This earth has gone thru many land mass and climate changes without mans interference.
PAX

 

[Jones]

It wasn't always underwater.
When the Russians dropped their flag on the sea floor at the North Pole a couple weeks ago, it was to try and lay claim to the oil and gas reserves that is believed to be there.
There could not be oil there, unless at one time organic vegetation was growing there.
This earth has gone thru many land mass and climate changes without mans interference.
PAX

Hmmm....the seafloor at the northpole is over 13,000 feet down. Are you saying that there is evidence that grass once grew there?

I'm pretty sure that undersea deposits of oil were formed mostly from plankton(scroll down a bit), not plant matter (which tends to form coal instead), and the Arctic ocean is extremely rich in plankton, which is why it is such a rich fishing area.

 

[wkmac]

Here's another point of view on this highly charged political issue.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

Interesting how the politics on this just fly everywhere but few even try doing anything on a personal level much less discuss ideas that if anything cuts our dependence on energy, especailly foreign energy and even save some $$$$ at the same time.

I'll return you to your WWE Raw Caged Match/Loser Leaves Town.

Ding!
Ding!
Ding!

 

[diesel96]

In the past 10 years, countless extremely biased studies have been commissioned, and conclusions have been reached. These papers were no doubt included in Schulte's survey. I don't know if Schulte has an axe to grind yet. He's a doctor specializing in endocrine surgery, not a climatologist; a google search doesn't show much of any activity related to global climate change, apart from this study. I'm looking forward,
Kmac, too see what interests he represents in the not to distant future.

Global Warming has become part of a political agenda, and we can no longer trust anything. The truth has been completely exposed or tainted by politicians of both sides looking to gain ground with the issue.

Fact is that it doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree - the planet isn't a democracy, and it's either warming or it isn't warming regardless of how many scientists say what. We will not know for certain unless/until something so catastrophic happens that it's impossible to hide behind facts and figures.

For me personally, the choice is fairly simple. From the common man, the global warming believers ask for such simple actions as -
Don't leave lights burning
Use energy efficient products
Use less gas/electric
All of which adds up to more money in your pocket. Hell is that such a bad thing?

Encourage/mandate the design/production of hybrid,ethenol,bio-diesel,natural gas vehicles,etc... and minimize us of harmful carbon exhaust and ween us off a dependence of oil and the Middle east once and for all.

When it comes to industry, I can understand the arguments($$$$). But it's industry that the anti-global warming politicians are seeking to serve, not the common man. ^
(rep's)

 

[moreluck]

The true proof that Global Warming either isn't real or can't be fixed by man is..........Paris Hilton has decided to 'take it on' as her pet project now that she's "turned her life around".

 

[wkmac]

I don't doubt the warming part at all because at the very least in my neck of the woods the temp. (although only in small percentage) has in fact risen over the last several years. We just had the warmest August in "recorded" history. Has there been a warmer one? I'd not be surprised to learn there was but also not surprised if there wasn't. What caused this recent extreme heat? Oceanic and meterlogical changes for sure but did greenhouse gases drive that? Was it an increased temp. from the sun? Was it manmade solid impervious surfaces that are huge thermal mass collectors and create heat islands that direct and steer weather patterns including rainfall? Can anyone point solely at any one of these causes and thus eliminate the rest and then go the next step and eliminate that source and thus lead to a reverse cooling effect? The answer to that question and others like it IMO is a resounding NO!

The simple fact is IMO that the real answer like a lot of things will in the end lay somewhere in the middle and a little more of this and a little less of that but there is no one single issue alone that has us where we are. The otherside of this coin from my POV is that in either case both sides want something from gov't to achieve an end and I trust neither in that effort.

Deisel, you mentioned mandates for hydrib/alternative energy etc. I'm a huge, huge believer in wind and solar and even micro-hyrdo where possible. When the home is built right, solar and wind does work and works very well and it is very possible in this day and age to build a home that pulls zero energy from any grid, pull zero water from any public water source including local streams and rivers and it's possible to have zero wastewater from you property. In other words, no electric bill, no water or sewage bill period and it's more affordable and cost effective than you think! And depending or your need of traveling distances, it might be possible to move about in a motorized vehicle and never touch a drop of petro at all and even if need be to only touch a vastly smaller amount than you use to. Am I ready for the gov't to mandate any of these? OH HEIL NO! Why? Because the moment you grant gov't this power, the underbelly of graft and corruption will step up to create a bureacracy that will manipulate the economics and market system so that in the future as technologies change and the need to adapt to new conditions we will be took locked into a system to change and longterm hardship will arise as a result. You think the only place this happens is in the military/industrial complex? Guess again.
Need 2 examples?

Years ago we face new technologies making life better and the gov't stepped in and began an earnest effort to psuh people towards 2 emerging technologies. The first was known as the REA or now know as RUS which promoted the electrification of rural America. Now bringing electric power to everyone is noble and good but it centralized electric generation to the point that to now mass convert to individual electric generation using clean solar or wind on any large scale would vastly hurt not only the economy but the gov't tax base as well. My 2nd example is gasoline. One of the chief hold ups of alternative fuels for motorized means of conveyance is there is no known mass distribution system in order to central fuel distribution not to keep us from traveling about but in order to have the mechanism to tax the motoring public in order to support the roadway infrastructure. In both cases, those industries get first order treatment from the gov't in all areas of public policy and in the cases of the up and comer, they may get a few merger table scraps just so the politicians can talk the talk and fool all of us with their "forward thinking" aproach to governance and future societal needs.

Having centralized both these 2 elements with mandates from previous gov't acts has now put us in position that we can't respond and adapt quickly with ideas that at least would work in some regional areas. I know ethanol has become a huge thing but it's not the answer either but who pushed this? How about Archer Daniels Midland and the other mega corp. corn farms who stand to gain nicely at the bank account. Or farm commodity brokers who stand to gain at the Chicago Board of Trade at the next crop report!

In the meantime other than cutting some money from the mideast oil sheiks and their American but lickers, it really does nothing and I use to own a car that ran on pure alcohol and loved it! BTW: the American but lickers have hedged their bets at the Chicago BOT on corn futures. They make theirs either way.

I do think that there is some solutions at an individual level and folks like the late Dennis Weaver, Ed Begley Jr. and Darryl Hanna and others who didn't/don't preach but in fact live the very example they speak of. They are walking talking examples of real ideas and lifestyles one can easily use, even something as small as going with flourescent or even LED lighting or instead of numbers of small trips, combine them to reduce mileage. I work evenings but one night a week on my way home I go by and do the family grocery shopping. Now other than piss my wife off by hitting the ice cream isle (that's not on the list she sez but I'm telling you all it really was) the stores are about empty with people and I drive right by the store on my way home from work and instead of going back out later, I save myself time, wear/tear on the car and of course gas and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If everyone in America could for example combine 1 trip a week like this, how must less money would go to those towelheads in the mideast and how much less CO2 into the atmosphere? Economic (so-called conservative) and Environmental (so-called liberal) are joined at the hip! Or with the fuel not used by our efforts still in the distribution system, how much pricing pressure would that generate to force the price down? Everyone wins, rich and poor. What if we cut out 2 trips or even 3 trips each?

Why aren't the leaders and flag wavers of the 21st century patriotic movement against islamo-fascism our preaching fuel conservation to keep $$$$ out of the terrorist hands and $$$$ in our pockets? Why aren't the tree hugging "give me a knothole to hump to prove my eco purity" also out preaching ideas and real world solutions to problems instead of this constant mindless banter about "THE NEO-CONS and BUSH!" caused it all? Yeah I don't like either one myself but they didn't create this mess and that is a "HUGE FACT" that some of you just can't get over. Now, they ain't helping either but move on to ideas and solutions!

While you guys argue and argue and argue just so at the end of the day you can thump your chest and say "I WON!" the towelheads get more of our money in their pockets, the auto makers have no reason to believe that we as a consuming public will buy fuel and eco friendly cars, the energy industry makes more and takes more of our money from us as we pay through the nose for homes that really aren't energy efficent at all (I learned that one myself and am still learning and correcting) and what impact manmade conditions does have will continue to go on. It might be that on the day one of you can stand alone and declare victory that either the towelheads will have our money and own us lock, stock and barrel or the environment will be so trashed you can't live in it anyway. Might even be both!

From what I can see, you both have an equal vested interest in kicking the root cause because even though your views of the after effects are different, in the end you'll still both loose either way. But Osama sends his love to you both anyway. And I never even discussed the idiot Chavez to our south and how much he's making on this deal!

JMO

Oh, I almost forgot.

Ding!
Ding!
Ding!

Battle on!