Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (13438)	8/17/2007 6:08:38 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224729

That's right, the Dems will watch like mesmerized lemmings. This wise writer asks questions re Gore & human respiration >Aug. 16, 2007 By Robert Bryce Al Gore’s Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it’s the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. That’s my conclusion after finally sitting down to watch “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Oscar-winning documentary that has turned Al Gore into a rock star (and rock music promoter). Here’s my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that’s harsh criticism. But it’s the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: “In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.” This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore’s movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie – including, particularly, Gore himself – paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, “Hey, what about breathing? Don’t we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?” The answer, is yes, we do. Thus, by including the claim that you can “reduce your carbon emissions to zero” the film’s producers might as well have hung a sign around Gore’s neck that says “I’m an idiot.” Despite the ridiculous claim about zero emissions, Gore’s documentary has become a cultural phenomenon. It won two Academy Awards, for best documentary feature and original song. And Gore has published a popular book by the same title. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there’s no global warming nor am I claiming that carbon dioxide has no effect on the atmosphere. I’ve read the IPCC’s latest report for policymakers. I’ve also read a good bit of what the skeptics have to say. All of it leaves me confused. That said, I have read enough to know that I’m skeptical of how Gore and others point their fingers at carbon dioxide as the culprit responsible for global warming. My skepticism comes via one of the oldest maxims in science: correlation does not prove causation. Yes, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising but that doesn’t necessarily mean that carbon dioxide is solely to blame for global temperature increases. Furthermore, my skepticism about the science is not my biggest problem with the carbon-dioxide-causes-global-warming argument. Rather, it is this question: Okay, then what? That is, given that the world economy (and most living beings) depends, one way or another, on emitting carbon dioxide, then how are we going to manage to stay fed, clothed, and transported? If we agree that carbon dioxide is bad, then can the world economy transition to some other no- or low-carbon energy source in a short enough timeframe to satisfy Gore’s contention that we have to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent over the next four decades? Yes, the U.S. can reduce its energy use and so can other developed countries. But in the developing world, forget it. For instance, over the next five years alone, India will add over 46,000 megawatts of new coal-fired electric power plants while increasing its coal consumption by about 50 percent. None of this is an argument for taking the issue of global warming lightly. It’s a serious matter. But then so is global poverty. And an essential element in fighting global poverty is – what else? – assuring reliable flows of inexpensive energy to the people who want it and can pay for it. And that’s just what countries like China and India are doing. Gore’s entire movie is suffused with a feeling of dread, that we should feel guilty about emitting carbon dioxide because we humans are the problem. Even though it is the nature of civilization to consume energy – and lots of it – Gore and his ilk want us to stop cold turkey. In Gore’s worldview, feeling guilty is an essential first step on the road to salvation. And the greater your guilt about using energy, the greater your virtue. Me, I’ll forgo the virtuous life in favor of continued respiration.<

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (13438)	8/17/2007 6:31:57 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224729

Just in case you missed the master today: >This is too good: The Breck Girl has $16 million invested with a firm that is foreclosing on houses of Hurricane Katrina victims! CNN's Bill Schneider did a despicable and distorted poll aimed at discrediting General Petraeus before he issues his report. The Democrats seem intent on McGovernizing themselves. They have a guns for sneakers program in Orlando, Florida. Identical baby quadruplets are born to a Canadian couple, but all the hospitals in Calgary were full so they had to come to the U.S. to have the babies. That's the system the Democrats want here, folks. Why didn't they keep on going until they got to Cuba?<