• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Professor Counters Gore

Mike

Well-known member
Economist Counters Al Gore: Cars Are Saving the Planet
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 27, 2007 - 11:05.
Dr. Global Warming, aka Al Gore, in his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” proclaimed that the internal combustion engine was “a mortal threat . . . more deadly than that of any military enemy.”

An op-ed written by an economics professor at the University of Georgia counters Gore’s dire assertions, and fervently stated that this invention is actually saving the planet.

In his piece published Tuesday in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dwight R. Lee wrote (h/t JunkScience.com, emphasis mine throughout): "The motto of all environmentalists should be "Thank goodness for the internal combustion engine."

Got your attention? Good, for Lee was armed for Gore, err, I mean bear:

The abuse heaped on the internal combustion engine by environmentalists was never justified. But a recent story on cow flatulence in the British newspaper, The Independent, makes the environmental benefits from gasoline-powered engines even more obvious. Based on a recent study by the Food and Agricultural Organization, The Independent reports that "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

Long before global warming became an environmental concern, however, the move from the power provided by animals to that provided by gasoline had greatly improved the environment. The emissions that came out of the tailpipes of horses were much more lethal pollutants that those now coming out of the tailpipes of cars. Horse emissions did more than make our town and cities stink; they spread fly-borne diseases and polluted water supplies that killed people at a far greater rate than the pollution from cars and trucks ever have.

Lee deliciously continued:

Photochemical smog is clearly a health risk, but not nearly the health risk of cholera, diphtheria and tetanus that have been largely eliminated with the help of gasoline powered transportation.

Before the internal combustion engine it wasn't just cows, sheep and pigs emitting pollution down on the farm. Tractors and other types of gas-powered farm machinery eliminated the horses, mules and oxen that had provided most of the power necessary to grow and harvest our food and fiber. This not only reduced the problem that still exists from animal waste that environmentalists, with justification, still complain about. The internal combustion engine also eliminated the need to produce food to fuel millions upon millions of agricultural beasts of burden. It has been estimated that in 1900 it took about 93 million acres of land to grow the food for the farm animals that were replaced by current farm machinery. Most of that land has now gone back to woodlands, greatly increasing the number of trees that are reducing the problem of global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide.

That’s not something you’ll hear from Dr. Gore or any of his global warming sycophants in the media, is it? Lee continued:

The above consideration should have been enough to warrant an environmental shrine to the internal combustion engine. And now we find that by eliminating all those farm-yard animals, the internal combustion engine also eliminated vast amounts of methane-producing flatulence, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide produce by burning gasoline.

Even though the internal combustion engine is less polluting than what it replaced, it is obviously not pollution-free. Efforts should, and will be made to make it even less polluting than it is, and some day internal combustion will be replaced by an even less polluting technology. But history will look kindly on the internal combustion engine as a major contributor to the steady progress toward a healthier environment that has been made over the centuries.

Sounds good to me. I’m off for an unnecessary drive to nowhere in particular to do my part in cleaning the environment.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
If it were just female livestock involved ,there would be no issue with global warming...As we have been told by women for years, females do not fart...there for,no release of any bad gas could find its way into the atmosphere..... :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

jigs

Well-known member
nonothing said:
If it were just female livestock involved ,there would be no issue with global warming...As we have been told by women for years, females do not fart...there for,no release of any bad gas could find its way into the atmosphere..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

women never keep their mouth shut long enough to build up the necessary pressure to fart!
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Nothing has been proven concerning "global warming", and I'm sick and tired of it being shoved down my throat. I hope US citizens (minus ILLEGALS) can think for themselves and believe this global warming is full of [email protected] Al Gore bought his grammy with his own $$$$, good for him, I have no respect for Al. My daughter's own science teacher believes in it and made all his students write a paper about the meaning of "Inconvenient Truth". I had her google Al Gore, he isn't a scientist, SO WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK HIS STUPID DOCUMENTARY IS TRUTH?????????
 

Mike

Well-known member
Hanta Yo said:
Nothing has been proven concerning "global warming", and I'm sick and tired of it being shoved down my throat. I hope US citizens (minus ILLEGALS) can think for themselves and believe this global warming is full of [email protected] Al Gore bought his grammy with his own $$$$, good for him, I have no respect for Al. My daughter's own science teacher believes in it and made all his students write a paper about the meaning of "Inconvenient Truth". I had her google Al Gore, he isn't a scientist, SO WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK HIS STUPID DOCUMENTARY IS TRUTH?????????

There has been warming and cooling of the earth since the beginning of time.

Whether it is caused by man or not is the big debate.

But I'm wondering if it's bad to have a little more CO2? Plants live off of it and produce oxygen. The healthier and hardier plants we have, the more oxygen they make.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Hanta Yo said:
Nothing has been proven concerning "global warming", and I'm sick and tired of it being shoved down my throat. I hope US citizens (minus ILLEGALS) can think for themselves and believe this global warming is full of [email protected] Al Gore bought his grammy with his own $$$$, good for him, I have no respect for Al. My daughter's own science teacher believes in it and made all his students write a paper about the meaning of "Inconvenient Truth". I had her google Al Gore, he isn't a scientist, SO WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK HIS STUPID DOCUMENTARY IS TRUTH?????????

Funny thing is how Hyprocritical he is, he flies around in private jet, riding in gas guzzling limo's and lives in a mansion that uses 20 times the energy as the average American.

I say we get rid of Al Gore and it would help improve Global Warming. :wink:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
aplus.........I listened to Hannity today, too. Amazing, isn't it, what Algore's requirements for electricity are, and that is just for his home in Nashville. His other homes, (at least 2 more) they don't have the figures for. At that rate, Algore needs his own Fairbanks Morse OP generator, say, with 1560KW capacity. Turning around 1175 KW/hour, they will burn around 90 gallons of diesel an hour. He could then sell the excess to his local power company.

I don't understand why fuel has jumped so sharply in the past 2 weeks. Gas here went from $2.129 on the 19th to $2.519 today, and road diesel from $2.519 on the 19th to $2.759 today.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Ever heard of the ICE AGE? It's not just a movie with big furry critters ya know!!!


Shifts in temperature and climates have always been happening, its nature. When you've got a bowl of ice cubes, they will melt if left alone. BUT if you slowly introduce them to more and more sunlight/heat over increments of time, they will melt faster. It's the laws of science.

We've got more people on the planet, growing every day, and we all create more 'crap' that warms the climate around us, thus the ice cubes in the bowl are melting faster than normal and not being replaced.

Doesn't take a scientist to understand that, it's basic 8th grade earth science.
 

quickdraw

Well-known member
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

I found this interesting.

Makes one wonder how many other rich and famous use more fossel fuels to enhance the lifestyle that they desire ? Probabally 95% of them, and probabally a lot of people that are not famous but merely selfish, do the same!


How many movie stars and corperate mogals as well as others use private jets to travel cross country solely because they do not want the in-convience of having to travel by car a little further, or deal with more people around them, to get to the same place.
How many use the excuse "it is my money so what concern is it of yours"?

They try to justify it by the attitude i am important therefore i am allowed!
Wonder just how important they would be if it wasn't for us little guys??
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Ever heard of the ICE AGE? It's not just a movie with big furry critters ya know!!!


Shifts in temperature and climates have always been happening, its nature. When you've got a bowl of ice cubes, they will melt if left alone. BUT if you slowly introduce them to more and more sunlight/heat over increments of time, they will melt faster. It's the laws of science.

We've got more people on the planet, growing every day, and we all create more 'crap' that warms the climate around us, thus the ice cubes in the bowl are melting faster than normal and not being replaced.

Doesn't take a scientist to understand that, it's basic 8th grade earth science.
I wonder why several good scienticts say that global warming either isn't happening or that if it is happening, it'll have very little effect and we couldn't stop it anyway. Maybe scientists dont' understand your eight grade science.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
This is an interesting read.

http://www.thecommstockreport.com/Newspaper/2007-0215colm.htm


I have asked this before and don't remember if anyone replied. Has anyone read Dixie Lee Ray's book (from the eighties) called "Trashing the Planet"?
If you ahve not, you would do yourself a big favour by finding a copy and reading it. It brings out the other side of the evironmental debate - brings a bit of balance to the discussion.


How many mansions is Al Gore heating?
 

Steve

Well-known member
KolanuRaven
Shifts in temperature and climates have always been happening, its nature. When you've got a bowl of ice cubes, they will melt if left alone. BUT if you slowly introduce them to more and more sunlight/heat over increments of time, they will melt faster. It's the laws of science.

We've got more people on the planet, growing every day, and we all create more 'crap' that warms the climate around us, thus the ice cubes in the bowl are melting faster than normal and not being replaced.

Doesn't take a scientist to understand that, it's basic 8th grade earth science.

So the "real solution" for reducing the U.S.s' global impact would be to reduce the number of people in the U.S. of A.?

I agree,...but it flies in the face of the other liberal agenda,... illegal immigration...

By reducing our population by 20 million, we would be making a good start?
By my quick calculations it would reduce the United Sates global impact by 2% immediately.

"Doesn't take a scientist to understand that",...* "it's basic 5th grade math."
*statement edited to make a profound point,...that current liberal policies and agenda is stupid.
 

Steve

Well-known member
This sort of hypocrisy among environmental elites is not uncommon. The same crowd that once landed the nickname "limousine liberals," well, should be considered "Gulfstream liberals." They are those who lecture us about the dangers posed by climate change and then fly awfully close to the sun in their beautiful luxurious private jets.

During a 2003 interview on "Hannity & Colmes," for example, I confronted activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about this double standard.

(on camera): Do you use a private jet?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., ACTIVIST: You know what? I am not going to dignify that question because it is not...

HANNITY: Because you do. And that's the point. You are going to lecture us about a car and you are traveling around the world in a private jet. And I find that hypocritical. Hypocrisy is an issue.

KENNEDY: Well, first of all, I don't travel around the world in a private jet. Have I ever been in a private jet? Yes, I have been in a private jet.

HANNITY: When was the last time?

KENNEDY: I can't tell you, I can't remember when I -- the last time I was.

HANNITY (voice-over): It wasn't until a later commercial break that I learned that Kennedy was leaving our New York studio that night to board, you guessed it, a private plane.

(on camera): By the way, where are you going after the show?

(LAUGHTER)

HANNITY: All right. I will let you off the hook. I don't mind if we have greater fuel efficiency. I don't mind alternative sources of energy...

KENNEDY: I told Sean on the ad that I am taking a private plane to (INAUDIBLE) -- to Florida.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
quickdraw said:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

I found this interesting.

Makes one wonder how many other rich and famous use more fossel fuels to enhance the lifestyle that they desire ? Probabally 95% of them, and probabally a lot of people that are not famous but merely selfish, do the same!


How many movie stars and corperate mogals as well as others use private jets to travel cross country solely because they do not want the in-convience of having to travel by car a little further, or deal with more people around them, to get to the same place.
How many use the excuse "it is my money so what concern is it of yours"?

They try to justify it by the attitude i am important therefore i am allowed!
Wonder just how important they would be if it wasn't for us little guys??

How many times in the last 6 years has bush loaded up AF1 and gone to Crawford at our expense?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Even the sainted GW has acknowleged Global Warming.


Are YOU saying that George 2nd is WRONG!!! YES or NO?


( I can't wait to see how ya'll squirm out of answering that)
 

memanpa

Well-known member
global warming has been going on for decades no one dessputes that!!

KAKA you still helping it by flying all over the country in your PRIVATE jet
burnin more fuel in 1 hour that the rest of the board does in a month?

and claiming it is your money therefor your right?

and you claim to be concerned about global warming? :roll: :roll: :roll:

oh sorry i forgot you are exmept because of who you THINK you are
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
I agree,...but it flies in the face of the other liberal agenda,... illegal immigration...

.

Doesn't only look like a "liberal" agenda-- but it looks like a GW and a "neocon Republican" agenda too.... :( :mad:

The Repbulican party already has huge splits in it with the Christian right and so on-- but the one thing that is going to totally tear the Party apart I believe will be this Mexican Border and illegal immigration issue that GW has sold his soul for...

I see several Republican Congressmen are now talking bringing impeachment proceedings against GW for the Border/Immigration/Jailed Border Patrolmen issues.........

GW may be giving away the White House to Hillary or Obama for his questionable Mexican dealings.....
 

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/an-ice-age-versus-global-warming/

February 26, 2007

An Ice Age versus Global Warming
By Alan Caruba

History and science suggest that we are, in fact, on the brink of the next major, cyclical Ice Age and it is far more likely that the northern hemisphere will begin to cool.


The latest summary of yet another revised edition of a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control has evoked all the usual fears predicting the deaths of millions by 2080, and other end of the world scenarios.

2080 is a mere 73 years from now. In meteorological terms, it is a blink of the eye. Real climatologists measure time far differently than the rest of us. While the IPCC, Al Gore, and the other fear mongers are warning of the horrors of Global Warming, it is useful to look at the time scales. The end of the last Ice Age was 11,500 ago.

It is also useful to keep in mind that the known cycle of time between Ice Ages is about 11,500 years. If you believe the fear mongers, in less than the lifetime of the average American, coastal cities will be under water. If the Ice Age cycle holds true, however, at some point it is far more likely that they will be under a thick sheet of ice.

Since we are at the end of an inter-glacial period, we are far closer to the next Ice Age than the last. Everything we call “civilization” has occurred since the last Ice Age. The rise of various empires began about five thousand years ago with Egypt initially being the most prominent.

Let me stipulate that none of the facts to be cited — taken from the open source of Wikipedia — will make any difference to those who are wedded to the global warmer’s end of the world scenario, though dying from too much ice is surely as unpleasant as dying from an over-heated planet.

The notion that humans can prevent either is so absurd as to defy belief, but it clearly doesn’t defy belief because millions have been convinced it can be done.

For now, it comes down to the amount of time in which Global Warming is predicted to end life on planet Earth. For the Global Warmers, the real agenda is not about somehow pumping all the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Even they know it’s impossible. It is also an idiotic goal given the fact that all vegetation is totally dependent on CO2 for its existence. Take away vegetation, forests, jungles, and all crops, and you also remove all human and other species. For true believers, the real pollution of the Earth is the human race.

The real agenda of Global Warming is political and economic. The IPCC’s predictions are intended to stampede the legislation of vast restrictions on all use of energy. It is energy and “labor saving devices” that have transformed what we regard as the modern world. Take away electricity and we are all instantly transported back to the days when the Declaration of Independence was written by candlelight.

An Ice Age, says Wikipedia, “is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth’s climate, resulting in an expansion of the continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers.”

Bear in mind that real science is of little interest to Global Warming advocates. History, too, is a great nuisance because it inconveniently suggests they are lying through their teeth.

For example, there was a Little Ice Age that Wikipedia says occurred “approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries, while others suggest a span from the 13th to the 17th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.”

Prior to the Little Ice Age of some three centuries length there was the Medieval warm period, sometimes called the Climate Optimum because it was a period when more crops produced more food, populations expanded, life spans were extended, and, life for those in the northern hemisphere improved.

Remember the stories of Valley Forge where George Washington’s rag-tag Revolutionary Army damned near froze to death in the winter of 1777-1778? Think mini-ice age. The one that began again around 1850 didn’t end until around 1950, a century later.

Now apply a bit of common sense. If the last mini-ice age ended in 1950, does it not follow that the Earth has warmed since then? Yes, it has. Climate scientists agree it has warmed about one degree Fahrenheit. Is this cause for panic? No. Should we cease using oil, natural gas and coal? No.

The Global Warmers tell you that it will get worse barely seven decades from now, but history and science suggest that we are, in fact, on the brink of the next major, cyclical Ice Age and it is far more likely that the northern hemisphere will begin to cool. The really bad news is that this will occur quite rapidly once it begins.

For those with the wits to examine the history and science of climate, it is obvious that the Global Warmers are seeking to deceive whole nations and continents into the destruction of a thriving period of world trade and relative peace we call globalization.

Short range, this is occurring today in the Congress of the United States. It must not be allowed to happen and those behind it should be driven from public office at the earliest possible moment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Caruba is the author of Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy. His weekly commentaries are posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.
[email protected]
http://www.anxietycenter.com/
 
Top