http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677- 2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

I'll make you a deal, Herb. I'll read your story if you read mine.

Deal?

We'll see if either of our respective stories/links creates any discussion.

well, like the bush adminstration, the troll will only find "stories" that fits their agenda, including the altreration of scientific findings used to establish policy.

(FK YOU THE BUSH ADMINSTRATOR WHO DID THIS AND HAD TO RESIGN AND NOW WORKS FOR EXXONMOBILE)

I'd say that the Bush admin, including this troll are just taking us for stupid, so to the troll, I say, fk you and get lost. We can both play the "stupid" game.

The planet belongs to everyone, we need to stifle anyone trying to kill the planet.

Attempts to silence those who hold differing views might work in a thug-filled union setting, but not in a democracy.

Thanks for showing us how the left operates. Were I bereft of ideas, I'd want to squelch the opinions of others, too.

Spin on.

Herb

SKEPTICAL, I was hoping for some F-in thoughtful debate on this F-in issue. Apparently that will not be F-in the case. Too F-in bad. I have always been one to F-in listen to both sides and make my decision, F-in thoughtfully.

Thanks for ending the F-in debate before it was started.

Have a great F-in day Skep!

Yes, Folks, it's Another Shocking 'National Enquirer' Headline started by our very own Bat-Boy!

Didn't we already talk about this moron and his ties to the smarmy Timothy F. Ball and the official sounding "Natural Resource Stewardship Project" that's actually funded by oil companies?

"Patterson and the oil-backed "Friends of Science"

"Patterson is listed as a "advisory board member" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS."

Spin on, indeed...

Hey Mikel,

You better be putting money (8x$1) in that jar, but can we please buy some REAL beer?

Lovin' you,

Mrs. D-----bag

Ew ew ew Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kot-ter

I just thought of a funny!

Let's call HerbB our very own internet COW. He walks around all day feeding (Reading) then just wanders in here and drops his crap all over the place! Be vewy vewy cawafo not to step in any of it!

A little substance with the link would be good DUDE! Otherwise it is just pretty much SPAM!

I'll take that as a " No deal."

That's fine. We'll just talk about your article.

I read it, Herb. Do you believe everything in that article to be true?

Yup Mrs. M, bought the first case on that post alone!

"I read it, Herb. Do you believe everything in that article to be true?"

Fair question.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Having said that, here's a thought I've never heard mentioned and I'm surprised the environmentalists haven't made it an issue.

What happens when all that oil is taken out of the ground? Will it create a vacuum, or perhaps sinkholes? Do they fill back up with water what must be absolutely huge underground holes? What are the ramifications in taking over a half-century of oil out of the ground? Will it make the ground unstable?

Herb

It creates global warming. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Let me ask you this then - Is there anything in your article that you do NOT believe?

mikel,

960 scientific papers and not one has been debunked. meanwhile the white house's ex-Exxon guy rewrites a scientific findings (he has no degree in the field) to fit white house policy. When caught, he's back at Exxon. FK you FKing George W Bush.

over 100 countries sign an agreement to contain this global warming problem and the United States and Australia are the only 2 countries not agreeing. FK you FKing George W Bush.



There is no longer a question of whether or not there is global warming -- its happening.

When deniers try to keep killing the planet with BS, its time to bring out the f-word and kick em in their testicles. Our children and our planet deserve better.

"What happens when all that oil is taken out of the ground? Will it create a vacuum, or perhaps sinkholes? Do they fill back up with water what must be absolutely huge underground holes? What are the ramifications in taking over a half-century of oil out of the ground? Will it make the ground unstable? "

I saw a documentary on the History Channel I believe where they were talking to some oil guys in Canada, and that is exactly what they do. They pump out the oil and fill it with water, and since the oil floats on the water it actually helps them extract MORE oil in the process.

"Is there anything in your article that you do NOT believe?"

Not really and here's why...

Any so-called 'science' regarding the whole global warming thing is theoretical and can be framed in many different political ways. It's a theory because if it claims that man is responsible, it's conjecture. Temperature may have gone up a tad, but determining that it's not simply cyclical, or that it could have come from some other factor, like sun spots, is hard to pin down.

If taking the oil out of the ground doesn't make it unstable, I say drill more.

Herb

So you believe that sun spots are responsible for this era of warming. That's the answer? Sun spots?

I just want to be clear. I'm not saying that it's incorrect.

I don't know. But more importantly, neither do scientists.

I have to go back to the 'coming ice age' that scientists so boldy predicted a few decades back. Man thinks he's so smart. But we're not and fooling ourselves doesn't help. I mean, scientists actually try to craft an explanation to the marvelous design of the human form, life around us and the glorious galaxies by saying it all evolved? That's why I laugh at so much that's called 'science.' It's not actually science, it's really political in attempts to avoid the harder questions. Science is fine for measuring things. But ascribing meaning, or even determining precisely how or why is something else.

Herb

Sooner or later Herb, you and the rest of your conservative friends are going to realize you can't pray away the worlds problems and the problems brought on by greedy corporate "thugs", since you like to use that word. I just hope it's sooner. Since you are such a student of the bible, tell us, what's that passage about being good stewarts of the earth????? Or do we just read what we want to into it????

It's too bad you don't believe in Global Warming, Herb. Your man Nixon would, based on his record in office, be way out ahead of the curve in doing something about it if he were president now. While there is no consensus of scientists predicting exactly how the climate will change, there is a concensus that man's activity is most certainly contributing to it. It's not a political issue anymore. Even Bush has finally acknowledged it. You are now part of a smaller and smaller minority in denial about this obvious truth, like those who denied that the world wasn't flat long after that fact had been established.

Andrew

Theories are used in science to make predictions, or to explain things that are not directly observable. That is why evolution will almost certainly remain a theory, because no one was around to directly observe natural selection over the millenia.

Understand that the 100,000 year historical record of global warming is also a "theory" - we see evidence of it, and we even see evidence of perhaps why it happened, but it is just as much a "theory" as evolution is. Note that both these theories are on rock-solid evidentiary ground.

(I do find it interesting that those who have disdain for science will reject or accept the validity of the scientific method based on how it does or does not support their political/personal agenda.)

But there are some facts that are happening today that are directly observable and therefore not "theory" as you describe it. Here are some facts from current science that are directly observable:

1) average world temparatures have been rising ever since the advent of the modern Industrial Age.

2) global warming has meteorlogical implications for the world, which are generally agreed to be disadvantageous to many forms of life on this planet, humans included.

2) Carbon emissions are a key greenhouse gas that increases temperatures

3) the burning of fossil fuels creates carbon emissions.

4) modern fossil fuel consumption is massive, and unprecedented in history.

5) The United States currently consumes and burns 1/4 of the fossil fuels in the world.


Conclusion: Fossil fuel consumption contributes to global warming, which is having a negative effect on life on Earth.

Note that this conclusion makes no determination of what should be done - I leave that entirely to you. If you believe we should keep drilling and burning oil, okay. But don't dispute the negative effect that approach has on our environment. Our use of fossil fuels contributes to global warming, and the more we burn the warmer things get. And that is causing bad stuff to happen. (Maybe some good environmental stuff is happening too - if you know of any let me know).

Again, a theory is by nature conjecture - tested, scientifically supported, fact-based conjecture. If you are looking for unsupported conjecture, you want to use the word "hypothesis". That's the name of a concept with little or no evidentiary basis - for example, the "creationism hypothesis".

So Herb, what you take away from that article is not an explanation of things - but that there IS no explanation available?

You post an article that on the surface, refutes Global Warming as we know it.

When asked if you are willing to read an alternate viewpoint, I get nothing from you.

When asked if you believe everything in that article to be true, you say " The truth lies somewhere in the middle."

When asked if there is anything in the article you do NOT believe, you say " No."

When asked if Sun Spots is now what you believe the cause of this is, you say " I don't know."

Herb, if you are going to post some alternate viewpoint in defense of your postion, at least have the courtesy to believe it instead of just sending us down some distracting path. We notice. It's rude. If you have something to say about it - SAY it. Don't just quote some random theory of the week article and then make no claim to it's veracity. I don't think you really believe one word of that article. And if you believe some - but not all - how the hell are we supposed to talk about that when it's a moving target for you yourself?

Why don't you just say what you feel?

"However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change."

So... according to the article.. it's not so much the change in direct solar warming, but rather the effect that the change in solar wind has on the heat-retention ability of the atmosphere.

So... stick with me here- the changes in climate they observed were due to variations in the atmosphere's ability to retain heat.

Now... what are we doing these days that has a huge effect on the atmosphere's heat-retention properties?

Please discuss.

"...what's that passage about being good stewarts of the earth?"

Touche'.

However, if we all wanted to really reduce carbon emissions and global warming, we'd do like the French and go nuclear.

Herb

"Herb, if you are going to post some alternate viewpoint in defense of your postion, at least have the courtesy to believe it instead of just sending us down some distracting path."

A good point. Here's where I was coming from:

Some issues FOR NOW are simply unknowable. I may THINK that the article I posted is true, or largely accurate...but I also have to be intellectually honest. For if I espouse that those propounding global warming as a concern cannot know it to an accurate and measurable certainty, how can I?

I wasn't trying to be evasive. Just honest.

Herbert Milhous

OK - I hear ya. I'll get back to this later. But for the moment, it's frustrating to see you quote science and scientists ( that from what I can tell, are in the vast minority ) to support how you think - but dismiss the others that use the same methods to reach THEIR conclusions.

Ta hell with nuclear....fix the problem today and leave the toxic waste for our grandkids to deal with...NO THANKS. Wind man.....Wind is the way....which you should know quite a bit about Herb! HA...sorry could not resist!

Anywho....have a look:
http://www.rnp.org/RenewTech/tech_wind.html

''You're one of those environmental type's?...They're evildoers. Yesterday it's a tree, today it's a salmon, tomorrow it's, 'Let's not dig up Alaska for oil because it's too pretty.' Let me tell you something, I came out here to enjoy nature, don't talk to me about the environment.''

Denny Crane

"However, if we all wanted to really reduce carbon emissions and global warming, we'd do like the French and go nuclear. "
O lordy... Herb and I agree on something. It's a sure sign of the end times.

Speaking of head-in-the-sand... we really need to pull our collective heads out and start building some (safe, modern) nuke plants.

The question of dealing with the waste has been answered. And in any case, it's a red herring... our coal-fired plants generate more hazardous waste than a nuclear plant would - true fact!

Wind is great, and we should build a bunch of wind farms... but wind power will never replace our base load generating capacity. It just can't work... the laws of physics say so.

"The question of dealing with the waste has been answered."

Wow. I'm not being one bit sarcastic when I say I have never heard that answer. What is it?

After the Three Mile Island near-catastrophe and the real thing in Chernobyl, I think it's going to be a hard sell ever getting the US public to support nuclear energy again. No coal-fired plant could do to a city what Chernobyl did. (And yes, I know Chernobyl wasn't designed the way American plants are, but that's beside the point; what happened there is still REMOTELY possible here.)

The way I see it, the only way to roll back global warming (already way too late to prevent it) is to curb our exponential population growth. Just getting everyone to drive hydrogen cars and move to 100% nuclear power isn't going to stop the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere caused by more and more humans and animals for them to eat.

Andrew

Copy and paste from media bias thread:

Author: Herb
Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 9:56 pm


"THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

That's precisely what the left is saying about so-called global warming.

Herb



So....what would the right have you believe? There is no problem or cause for alarm, everything is fine. Right up until the point that the planet get's so hot and the ozone layer get's to thin that when you go clothes shopping the tags then read "Meduim-Well" and "Extra-Crispy"! You won't be using any SPF30 no more you'll be using reflective sun blocking paint from Dutch Boy! We will all look like the Microsoft Blue Men walking the streets!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5587879641696978294&q=global+warming&to tal=13847&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

There is a problem and simply ignoring and disputing it will allow it to get worse and maybe even beyond the point of recovery. Then it's put your head between you leg's and kiss your ass goodbye.





Author: Mrs_merkin
Friday, June 22, 2007 - 10:44 am


He simply doesn't care because he'll be dead before all the fish are. Maybe.

He's too busy putting all his "energy" into the anti-gay and abortion agendas and how they relate to his bible to bother with that "steward of the earth" crap.




Author: Darktemper
Friday, June 22, 2007 - 11:12 am


OH.....you mean sticking his nose in other people's bizness!

I can hardly wait for the time in say about 50 years when the world will be facing managed population expansion. I can see the right wingers jumping up and down behind their pulpit's shaking their bible's already! It's inevitable, the world cannot keep going at the same pace and expect to survive. The only other population control we have seen throughout history has been war and that prospect with the nuclear options available will most certainly bring about global extinction of the human race!

Please check the nearest emergency exit while you are flying on planet earth, oh wait, there aren't any! Oh well, in case of global warming you can use the person next to you as a flotation device!

"...it's a red herring... our coal-fired plants generate more hazardous waste than a nuclear plant would..."

Bingo. Right on, Tadc.

If the left was honest, they'd simply admit they want to take us back to the pre-industrial age. Coal indeed is way dirtier than almost any other fuel source. These leftists call themselves 'progessives,' but hate our country's advances, even if it makes us independent of foreign oil.

Herb

Herb, why don't you admit that your opposition to Global Warming has nothing to do with the facts or the science? It has to do with the fact that environmentalists (or LIBERALS as you think of them) were the first ones to sound the warning. And because of that, no matter what the facts, you are automatically against it. Your house could be burning down around you but if a liberal were the one who called the fire department first, you'd be denying the reality to the last cider.

Andrew

Can someone please try and convince me that nuclear is the way to guy by enlightening me on just how the 10,000 year toxidity problem has been taken care of! I mean Hanford is full up and leaching towards the rivers as we speak. Think we have a Salmon problem now just wait till our rivers are full of two-headed and no tailed fry!

There are plenty of reasons. One is because the left has an agenda which is hardly trustworthy. Another is because science was wrong before, whilst warning of the 'coming ice age.' Science also pushes evolutionary theory, which is a sham and sick joke foisted upon our kids. Science also wants to go with a Hitlerian stem-cell program where the unborn are experimented upon.

Environmentalists can be whack jobs. PETA doesn't want me to fish or even own fish in an aquarium. As a sportsman, I practice more consistent stewardship of our natural resources than many so-called environmentalists, especially the Hollywood variety.

Bottom line: You're free to worship the created, rather than the Creator, at the altar of science. As for me, no thanks.

There is bad science and plenty of it.

Herb

The safety of the plant itself, while importaqnt, was never my reason for being a little jumpy about Nuclear power. Never. It's IS the waste that makes me jumpy.

So really, let's try and stick with that for a moment so we can move past it. By all means, tell me what newly discovered solution to that is because I haven't heard it. Don't try and distract things by comparing it to coal - I don't care about that right now. I really want to know what solution has been reached on disposal of nuclear waste.

Herb, it's fairly easy to distinguish mainstream scientific views from crackpot views. Global warming has been embraced as a real threat not only by nearly all respected scientists but by a lot of Christians. Do you realize for example that even Pat Robertson is worried about man's contribution to global warming???

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/03/robertson-global-warming/

But again, you aren't even willing to discuss the facts of global warming. I think you pretty much proved my point in your response; it's all about "the left" and its "agenda." In this case, I guess both me and Pat Robertson disagree with you.

Andrew

"There is bad science and plenty of it."

And HerrB is buying right into it.

"By all means, tell me what newly discovered solution to that is because I haven't heard it."

I say shoot it into space. But don't listen to me. How about some suggestions on energy from one of America's greatest scientists, Dr. Bill Wattenburg, Ph.D.: http://www.pushback.com/energy/

Bottom line: Nuclear energy is indeed a platform he heartily supports. This is a SCIENCE guy, so you people should like it.

His CV is enough to make my brain hurt:

http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/BillWattenburgResume.pdf

http://www.kgoam810.com/complexshowdj.asp?DJID=3552

Big fucking deal! They made better containers for the storage of the waste. How can you except that as environmentally friendly. All it is is a cheap short term solution to provide power so that the large corporations can reap the profit's! Nuclear may be safe i'll give you that but it's by-products are not. They are toxic and long term.
Remember that old series "Space 1999"? Well it did not work out so well dumping it on the moon now did it.
Sure launch it at the sun until the first transport blows up lifting off causing the evacuation of Florida and parts of Texas for 200 years!

I scanned that article and even clicked a few links. Where does it give the soluton that was reached? Just telling me what it is would help.

Shoot it into space? Gee, that won't cost anything.

Dr. Wattenburg explains that we are receiving FAR more in radioactive exposure alone [not to mention many other carcinogens] right now than we would from nuclear power:

"..burning coal actually puts 2,000 tons of radioactivity into our atmosphere each and every single year!"

By NOT using nuclear power, we're doing far more damage to ourselves and the environment. If you so-called 'science' types actually weighed the risk analysis on this, you'd be pro-nuke, too. Emotionalism and knee-jerk liberalism doesn't help.

Herb

Herb. Can you or can you not give me the solution suggested for disposing of nuclear waste?

Were you serious about shooting it into space?

"Were you serious about shooting it into space?"

Sure. It's an option.

Look.

Anti-nuke types will say anything to deter nuclear energy and much of their disagreement is not science-based, but fear based, like those who won't fly...even though their chances of dying in a car wreck on the way to the airport are far greater.

The bottom line is that our problems will be much worse if we don't shift to alternative fuel sources, one being nuclear. Hey, the French use it a lot now...and doesn't the left think they're so wonderful, being european and all...

Herb

One terrorist with a LAWS missle launcher and "BOOM" goes the shuttle, one huge dirty bomb! GET REAL DORK! I know let's burry the shit in Herbert's backyard! He want's it so bad then let him have it!
Alternative sources: Wind, Solar, Geo-Thermal, Magneto Hydrodynamic Concentric Electromagnetic Conversion!

Herb writes:
Dr. Wattenburg explains that we are receiving FAR more in radioactive exposure alone [not to mention many other carcinogens] right now than we would from nuclear power:

"..burning coal actually puts 2,000 tons of radioactivity into our atmosphere each and every single year!"

Wow - I did not know that, that Chernobyl was no big deal because coal is worse every year - thanks for clearing that up! Better tell the Ukrainians and Russians who died or got sick after the accident that they are better off than us in the coal nations!

Andrew

Hey Herb....there is some property for sale cheap up in Hanford....you oughta move up there. You can be a "Glowing" example for how safe nuclear is. Yes I realize it was mostly from weapons developement but Nuclear Energy Production waste resides there as well, so should you!

You know what they say "Two Heads are Better Than One"! You could double talk your way out of anything then! HA


http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/HCleanup.shtml

"Were you serious about shooting it into space?"

Sure. It's an option.

OK - let me ask you this then: Why would we need to shoot it into space? Why can't we just keep it here on Earth? That's an option too, right? Why not just dump it into the ocean? That's an option.

The reason is clear - uh, becaue it's NUCLEAR WASTE.

So you have no problem funding the costs to properly research what it does to shoot it into space, build the infrastructure to shoot it into space, and cross our fingers that all that research pays off. Because, you know, nothing could go wrong there. Nope. Not a chance. Billions it would cost. BILLIONS.

Yet you will not buy the prevailing research that says we are contributing to global warming and are opposed to funding emission controls or pollution laws. That's bad and a waste of money that we don't have?

That doesn't seem a bit backwards to you?

Naw.

If indeed global warming is a problem, like the left says...

And if indeed we are being held financially hostage by those who control oil, like the left says...

And if coal is not an option, like the left says...

And if drilling in Anwar is not an option, like the left says...

And if current production of oil is not enough to keep our economy going...nor is wind, bio-diesel and mass transit...

Then nuclear energy is an option.

It goes back to what I said. Those on the fringe are more worried about flying than driving to the airport.

Did Chernobyl happen? Yeah, and it might happen again. Plane crashes happen. One either weighs the risks...and NOT going with alternative fuels is in itself a big risk, including from a health standpoint as shown with coal radiation alone. I don't like giving terrorists money for their oil, either and that's why I'm willing to place some ideas on the table.

I'd like to see the left come up with a workable solution. Workable. Otherwise their sniping and hand-wringing means very little.

Herb

"..burning coal actually puts 2,000 tons of radioactivity into our atmosphere each and every single year!"

Herb, you have 2,000 tons of radioactivity in your back yard. It's called dirt. Excavate down a hundred feet and geiger what you pull out of the hole. There's radioactivity there.

I'd have to read the whole article, but saying that there is "2,000 tons of radioactivity" in the air is alarmist. but has no context. What type of radioactivity? How intense? Half-life?

I don't get the sense you know what real science is, Herb. It is based on the scientific method. Wikipedia describes it well (edited):

"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of natural or artificial phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these hypotheses for accuracy. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results.

"...the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them."

Herb, you have made it clear that you value faith, biblical truth and your version of "common sense" as the key sources of answers in life. Science depends on objectivity (no value set), evidence, and reproducable experimentation. Science seeks peer review. Good scientific theories become that way because they have been subjected to a broad range of evidence and have held up. Good scientific theories are compared to possible alternate theories, and one that explains all the evidence best will come out on top.

Herb, you seem to accept and reject the scientific method at will. When science supports your preconceptions, it's "good" science. When science flies in the face of what you believe is right, it is "bad" science.

Look at the Wikipedia description again. These should be your criteria for determining what is good science:

- is the evidence sound?
- have others had access to the evidence to confirm its soundness?
- does the explanation (hypothesis) account for the greatest amount of available evidence?
- are there ways to test the hypothesis?
- are the tests reproducable by others?
- have the results being favorably reviewed and critiqued by others in that field?

Note that a "report" by a doctor or scientist does not make a theory, it only makes a hypothesis. That hypothesis must be tested through the scientific method over a period of time to see if it explains the evidence as proported. If so, then it becomes a theory - a tool that can be used to make further predictions.

In short Herb...I think it's a joke when you cite "science" to disprove global warming, or cite "science" to show how coal emissions radiate us more than nuclear would. Now I'm not saying that any of these conjectures are true or false. I just think it is a joke that you, Herb, cites them to build your arguments. Because you will discard the rock-solid scientific evidence about the developed world's role in global warming as "politics" or "knee-jerk liberalism" - in effect discarding any regard for the scientific method.

You love to have it both ways. And you're good at having it both ways. But as I've said before (and you know I love you man, I really really do) you are getting hilarious in how you are contradicting yourself.

I offer this long diatribe about the scientific method not to change your mind Herb, because you are unchanging and unchangable (except for the French, of course, who are no longer bête noire, but lately instead seem to inspire in you la petite mort.) I do this to help the rest of us to better understand you, and the inherent contradictions in so much of what you bring to this board. There's often intriguing ideas in your contributions, but none of us should try to consume our Herbs without a few grains of salt.

p.s.: Shoot nuclear waste into the sun? Quite literally fucking crazy. Sure, that last 97 million miles are a breeze, but it's that first hundred miles that can kill you (and a million others.)

Giant dirty bombs built by the cheapest contractor's! Really spikes my confidence!

"Then nuclear energy is an option."

And we just shoot the waste into space. Got it.

I'm glad you are here, Herb. I mean that sincerely. I know that there is no way to say this without it sounding like a back-handed compliment - but I'm going to say it the way it is in my head;

If I didn't have regular dialogue with you, specifically, I would doubt the claims by the fringe left about what kind of ideologies they fight against. I would say " No way. There aren't really people who think that way with a straight face. Given an opporunity to say ' You don't really think THAT, do you? ' they would all say ' Well, no. But I am trying to make a point that we need to think and strive for something better.' "

But not you, man. You got it all figured out. And THAT is the thing that motivates people to come up with a better solution; To exhaust every possible angle until YOU come around. You won't. But we will find the best solution because you made us do it. And it will be the one you fight against the hardest - purely out of spite, pride and obstinance, you will force the rest of us to find the REAL solution. It'll make us more confident and sure solely because you were around to make us do it. Otherwise, we'd just try things that don't work.

I was thinking today about how I wanted to write something to the effect of "I am so fucking tired of this stupid shit".

All I see is how pointless and useless it is to attempt to engage Herb in these (any, really) discussions because he's so slippery, yet you guys continue to try to beat some reason and logic into the goose-stepping dinosaur.

So, CJ and Edsel, thank you. You both just wrote what I was feeling, and said it better and kinder than I would have. It's not worth my time anymore. But I will continue to do background research on his "sources", which somehow always seem to turn out to be linked to his dreaded "bad science".

"I am so fucking tired of this stupid shit".

He's a troll. He no longer deserves rational discourse and hasn't for some time. the only thing left to do is to pound his testicles with a hammer for impeding mankind's desire to save God's planet.

go away troll.

I'm with CJ on nuclear power. If a means to neutralize waste material could be found, I'd be quite interested. But with the troll FKing up the discussion here, I've lost interest in even giving that option some thought.

A troll is selfish because he also circumvents consideration of any meaningful input from others with his view.

Go AWAY!

http://www.space.com/news/nuclear_moon_020822.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1191376,00.html

So will you at least admit that dealing with the waste is still a VERY huge problem and we can just meet there? Or are you citing those articles to show me that the problem has been solved and we should move forward on them? Because both of thse articles admit that there is a huge problem and a huge cost and a huge risk if not done perfectly every time.

What ARE the French doing with their waste? ( Since you keep citing them ).

And let me pose another idea; If the monetary cost to develop a program of nuclear waste disposal was the same as developing and implementing a new kind of fuel - that worked on the scale we need it - then would you be willing to consider that as an option?

Or is it Nuclear Only? Nothing else will work.

"So will you at least admit that dealing with the waste is still a VERY huge problem and we can just meet there?"

Certainly it is potentially a very huge problem. But consider the considerable down sides of continuing to walk down the same path we're on. We're giving these terrorists the means by which to hit us again.

And the fact is that unless we buy some time by drilling for more oil in Anwar and other areas, other alternatives simply won't be on-line for another decade or so.

There are problems no matter which direction we try. It's a matter of risk assessment, plain and simple. If people don't want to go nuclear, fine. Just don't be deceived into thinking that it's not doable.

Herb

Why can't coal burning plants be forced to scrub their emmissions better?

The Nuclear Legacy is to far reaching to keep moving forward with unless an affordable and efficient way is developed to neutralize the waste product.

The key words of the day are "Sustainable Alternative Energy Sources"!

We are so stuck on old school methods. Wind is right here and in our face every day! Solar needs to be further developed as the materials needed are also toxic to the environment when disposed of and in their manufacturing. Geo-Thermal. Let's make developements in these fields first before Nuking our childrens and grandchildrens environment. What we do today likely will have no effect on us but rather on our decendants so think about that Herb. Live for today and fuck tomorrow or "Live For Tomorrow Today"!

Theres a slogan a green candidate will likely turn up with:
"Live For Tomorrow Today"

What's the difference between if we use, and then contain nuclear waste...or continue to fund radical oil producers who intend on nuking us deliberately? At least if we use nuclear energy, we have a say as to where it goes.

Platitudes are fine, but let's hear some specific answers to the hard questions. Wind is not able to meet our energy needs. It costs more to produce a gallon of bio-fuel than the energy it provides. Solar may be a good fuel source down the line. But even now, it's not practical for large scale use.

Herb

We could start by mandating that car companies be forced to sell cars for the US market that are on average as efficient as those sold in the European market. A Senate energy bill this week finally tries to address that by raising CAFE standards for the first time in 20 years. It's way late for this kind of thing but it's a step in the right direction.

Andrew

The Troll just don't get it. When the creek that run's under the bride where he lives is full of three headed salmon then maybe he'd wake up!
Hey Herb....when you start catching fish like this check your Geiger Counter:
http://moldychum.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/05 /catfish.jpg

"At least if we use nuclear energy, we have a say as to where it goes."

I agree that nuclear should be on the table as possibly part of the answer to our energy needs. Certainly 25 years after Three Mile Island we have solved a lot of the issues regarding nuclear power plant operation. I seriously doubt that today we would have any kind of Chernobyl-type crisis. However, waste disposal continues to be the fly in the ointment. I have to agree with your statement that nuclear pollution is by nature more containable than the stuff spewing out of fossil-fuel powered plants and out of cars.

"Platitudes are fine, but let's hear some specific answers to the hard questions. Wind is not able to meet our energy needs. It costs more to produce a gallon of bio-fuel than the energy it provides. Solar may be a good fuel source down the line. But even now, it's not practical for large scale use."

All these answers don't address on of the biggest polluters, which are gas powered vehicles. Our entire infrastructure is designed around these machines, and they are not going away anytime soon, despite the surge in Prius sales.

"Manure I tell ya, Cow poop would make a potent fuel source." America needs more meat, more meat more cow's, more cow's more poop, so eat RED MEAT!
''You would agree that by and large, vegetarian's are communists?''
Red Meat, It's Powers America, American's!

I'm Denny Crane

"But not you, man. You got it all figured out. And THAT is the thing that motivates people to come up with a better solution; To exhaust every possible angle until YOU come around. You won't. But we will find the best solution because you made us do it. And it will be the one you fight against the hardest - purely out of spite, pride and obstinance, you will force the rest of us to find the REAL solution. It'll make us more confident and sure solely because you were around to make us do it. Otherwise, we'd just try things that don't work." -- Chickenjuggler.

This is so completely and totally American, it's both beautiful and silly at the same time. Love it, and perfectly said. I meant it when I said you have a talent man. You really do.

I'm not opposed to nuclear energy, but some really serious consideration has got to be given to the waste, and to using multi-layered processes that cost more, but very completely utilize the materials. It's really gotta be waste, as in it no longer produces a net gain, before we archive it. There is no disposal of this stuff, just really long term storage, unless we do the shoot it into space bit.

(and that's very risky, depending on how it is packaged for the ride.)

There is another angle on this alternative energy thing, not being considered as fully as it should.

Forget the global warming bit, and just focus on our needs as humans. Make the assumption that global warming will turn out to either be a non-event, or whatever it takes to factor it out.

What's left?

Elementary food and technology needs, that's what.

Oil will peak. In fact, it's likely to be peaking right now. Peak means, no increases in production ever again, and a cost of extraction roughly equal to the amount required for said extraction. (Takes a barrel to get a barrel.)

My big concern over alternative energy lies with a single factor: energy density. Oil has the highest and most portable energy density of any source known to us. It is this portability and high output that drives our society today. And that's where the trouble lies.

Right now, your average food travels 1200 miles or so to you. We commute long distances, etc...

We've lost community in many areas and that's a big problem going forward. Should our existing infrastructure find itself not able to provide, a lot of people are gonna die, simply because the energy density is not there to provide for them.

Additionally, we will find ourselves working a lot harder to get core needs met. (food, heat, etc...)

One other thing. Should we consume too much oil, being too lazy to begin to restore community infrastructure, we may well find ourselves in a position where we lack the energy density necessary to build out the technology required to make use of other energy sources!

This is a biggie as we utilize oil for nearly everything that matters, tech wise. Consider computers, machinery, engines of all kinds, etc... plastics! These things require oil to construct. If there is a push-pull between feeding people and building tech, that's gonna be ugly.

(It's also likely to be the reason for this administrations aggression, but they are not gonna talk about that, for a lot of reasons.)

Energy sources, like biodiesel, can be distributed nicely, produced where it is needed, and can be consumed, at a higher cost, in lieu of oil. IMHO, it's worth the price premium to encourage infrastructure builds to reduce costs. We really won't have a choice at some point.

For other sources, such as solar, wind, nuclear, etc... we need fairly large amounts of oil to build these things out, and some reserve to maintain them. And there is the rub, in that we, at some point, must surrender our high ROI on oil extraction and consumption, to perform these build outs and there is no incentive right now to do so.

IMHO, it's gonna take leadership and dollars to encourage this, global warming or not. Said leadership is gonna impact the existing petro-society in a big way, and it's gonna have to both stand against that and educate the people as to why. That takes smarts, conviction, and a strong desire to serve the peoples best interests, not the largest profits.

We might be hosed!

Frankly, there will be enough oil to empower technology needs for a long enough time for us to consider alternatives on that basis, given we can resolve our transportation problem, and make some consessions on basic things and focus on community matters.

Biodiesel could extract oil. This would be at a negative cost, per barrel, but the biodiesel is renewable, so we could continue to get oil in some form for materials, tech and those cases where high energy density are required. It's a huge transition though --and one that's gonna impact everybody huge, profit wise.

Honestly, I think nuclear is viable, given some serious consideration about waste archival issues. It can be done and done safely. No biggie, IMHO. However, it's limited in scope, as it's not as portable as oil is, meaning it's gonna be largely useless for achieving a net gain in transport.

Building an electric car right now is seriously energy negative because of overall complexity and batteries. Given some alternatives for powering machinery, which nuclear could provide, complexity is sustainable. However, batteries are just not. Their waste and materials problems are too great for the very long term.

IMHO, burning things makes the most sense for transport and that means other fuels. Alcohol, biodiesel, maybe, maybe hydrogen, assuming we can extract it in a sane way. Biotech may well answer this question actually. We feed the bugs our food waste and they return hydrogen? Given we can make nice bugs, that don't prefer us to the food we provide, it might all be good.

That's it really. Just some thoughts on overall energy density, it's impact on our infrastructure and society, and distributed systems. Unless something new is found --and quick, the answers lie there --we've no choice in the matter.

You raise a good point. Raising food closer to the consumer makes a tremendous amount of energy sense whilst supporting the local economy. As for those who demand Chilean grapes in the middle of Winter, well, they'll either have to do the greenhouse thing themselves, wait, or buy from those who raise them here.

Herb

Manure I tell ya, Cow poop would make a potent fuel source." America needs more meat, more meat more cow's, more cow's more poop, so eat RED MEAT!
''You would agree that by and large, vegetarian's are communists?''
Red Meat, It's Powers America, American's!


Vegetarian is an old Indian word. It means "Bad Hunter"

ROFL!!!!!!

Sorry for leaving the discussion to Herb for so long, but to summarize:
Modern nuke plant designs are idiot-proof. Building a plant that is accident-proof is a *solveable* engineering problem... in fact I believe that there are several exisiting designs that meet this requirement.

As for the waste, yes it's scary and lasts a long time, but most of the *really* dangerous isotopes have half-lives *much* shorter than the "thousands of years" figures usually thrown around. In fact, (and IANANuclear Engineer) I believe that there are reactor designs that recycle their waste into new fuel. The problem with these is that they run on plutonium, and the governments are afraid of creating plutonium due to the bomb potential(never mind that it will be locked up inside a reactor).

Further, technologies have been developed to make the waste essentially inert - glassification is one.

So basically, you take the waste and turn it into an inert solid(note, do NOT leave it in a liquid state and bury it in a single-walled steel container next to the Columbia river!). Then, you put it in an indestructible container (which already exist and have been tested to withstand every imaginable catastrophy) and ship it to a long-term geologically inert location for burial.

You have to keep in mind that the actual *volume* of waste generated by nuclear plants is *infinitesimally* small in comparision to the waste generated by any other conventional method (not counting hydro, wind, solar of course). This means that, although it's much more dangerous than conventional waste products, it's still cheaper to deal with, even using extraordinary means to keep it safe, than conventional waste streams - especially when you take into account the fact that a large portion of the waste stream currently being generated (airborne pollution from coal plants for example) is essentially being ignored. We can't continue to use the atmosphere as a dumping ground.

The arguing and bickering in this thread was raising more questions that it could succesfully answer. I decided to look at the Wikipedia page on nuclear energy to see what it had to say about the handling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Here is a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Life_cycle

Several other countries that use nuclear power, including France, recycle some of their used nuclear fuel in an operation called "reprocessing." However, this reprocessed fuel can only be used in breeder reactors, which are not yet commercially feasible. The U.S., as part of its nuclear non-proliferation policies, forbids reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

Disposal of the used fuel is a complex multi-step process that ultimately would put the waste into deep underground vaults. Such a facility is being built under Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and it is expected that it will take another ten years before the site is ready to store nuclear waste. The projected cost of storing the waste there is about $50 billion - $100 billion, but the cost of keeping the waste at power plants, as is being done now is in the $200 billion - $400 billion range.

Fascinating stuff. And to any nuclear engineers out there who also want to weigh in, please have at it. We're all learning something here.

Herb

I wonder if this cost of diposal over lifetime is included when calculating the economic viability of nuclear energy.

I think that if it were, solar, even at it's current state of developement, would seem cheap by comparison.

Nuclear "Fission Reactors" will one day be replaced with "Fusion Reactors"!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
We are not likely to see these in our lifetime but will most likely be a part of our grandchildrens time. The operation and design of these would eliminate such catastrophies as Chernobyl and the near catastrophy of Three Mile Island. Wind should be further tapped not to replace nuclear or any other source but to better utilize one of the cleanest power generation methods available. I see monster blades all the time on I-5 in the mornings taking the 205 to parts east I believe. I know near the tri-cities there is a large wind turbine farm. The Dalles or Hood River would be an extremely good location due to the constant wind. Boardman.......nothing but bare windy flat plains. There is so much land that could be put to use for these. The waste from a wind turbine......100% recyclable materials: Aluminum, Steel, Copper, etc. etc. Again wind not to replace anything just to help keep up with the ever increasing need for electricity and to hopefully stave of the need for more nuclear and coal plants.

What will PETA say about this to their fellow liberals?

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177

Herb

There's always gonna be an impact one way or another. You'll never please everyone no matter what you do. Just how bad is it. You got any figures on the annual Bird Bashing?

Addintionally of the topic of Fusion Reactors:
Fusion power has many of the benefits of long-term renewable energy sources (such as sustainable energy supply and no greenhouse gas emissions) as well as some of the benefits of such relatively finite energy sources as hydrocarbons and nuclear fission (without reprocessing). Like these currently dominant energy sources, fusion could provide very high power-generation density and uninterrupted power delivery (i.e. they work independent of the weather, unlike wind and solar power).

"You'll never please everyone no matter what you do."

That's right. PETA is such an extremist organisation, that they're now trying to ban all fishing. Don't think it could happen?

Herb

Bait & Switch. STFU troll.

Herb, did you post that link because you think it's absurd? Or you think it's a valid concern?

Well, Herb hadn't bashed liberals or the left in a couple of posts, and we were starting to generate some good non-confrontational discussion on the future of nuclear power. Thanks for the partisan monkey wrench Herbie.

Hey! I support PETA.

PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals!

I'll have mine meduim-rare, please.

As resident troll keeps reliving junior high school here, he contributes to the success of "extremists" liberal groups by disassociation -- any enemy of the troll is a friend of ours. I never thought about sending PETA a check, nor do I support the banning of all fishing, but with the BS from the troll murking up the discussions, I'm tempted to send a check to PETA now, just to teach the troll a lesson.

ps: fishing tackle box for sale -- $5.

Colonel Sanders is on pickup patrol of the wind turbine farms so no harm no "FOWL"!

"Here's a tip my friend. Never, ever talk about anything to do with the environment. Makes you boring. Second, it's political. You gotta figure half the people are against you."

"Herb, did you post that link because you think it's absurd? Or you think it's a valid concern?"

Witness the liberal reaction when the downside of their pet projects, like wind power, is highlighted. They simply cannot handle it.

Every energy modality has significant downsides, including wind power. The link points out the problem with eliminating currently effective energy modalities like nuclear power, to favour those which are in a nascent stage.

And the left better get their act together, because even ardent liberals are not on board with wind power.

"The campaign to stop the wind farms was started by Cape Cod merchants and wealthy landowners. It's also opposed by almost every town government. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has a home overlooking the proposed wind farm, also opposes the project. So does one of Martha's Vineyard most famous residents, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/sunday/main560595.shtml

Herb

Yep. The NIMBY syndrome!

They are the same people who oppose cell towers then complain their phones don't work.

Author: Herb
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 9:00 am

"Witness the liberal reaction when the downside of their pet projects"

This is a project for humanity you DORK! Quit making everything f'ing political! I would rather knock a few bird's out of the air than glow in the dark. You need to poke your head out once in a while, viewing the world from inside of the republican colon has given you tunnel vision! Good thing they are due for a colonoscopy in 2008!

"You’re a douche-bag. I don’t do well with douche-bags."

Herb, when is the last time you went fishing?

"This is a project for humanity you DORK!"

Then why do such 'humanitarians' like Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite oppose it?

"Herb, when is the last time you went fishing?"

Less than two weeks ago.

Herb

Author: Herb
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 9:35 am

"Then why do such 'humanitarians' like Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite oppose it?"

Not in my Backyard!

Uh Gee....I wonder if it'll hurt the view from their posch luxury, homes or something?

"The campaign to stop the wind farms was started by Cape Cod merchants and wealthy landowners. It's also opposed by almost every town government. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has a home overlooking the proposed wind farm, also opposes the project. So does one of Martha's Vineyard most famous residents, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite."

The Kennedy-backed provision ''would short-circuit the process and kill the project, which I think would be a mistake," Bingaman said.

''If there are problems with the project, they ought to come out and be discussed. But they shouldn't be dealt with this way."

Bass said the Cape Wind project has been treated differently in Congress because powerful lawmakers and special interest lobbyists vacation on Cape Cod and treasure the ocean views.

''It's odd that the people who are against it are the people who have [scenic] views," Bass said. ''I'm sorry about that, but the project ought to rise or fall on its merits."

Kennedy dismissed such talk as ''their response to any kind of raising of questions" about the project's problems. ''It's just an easy response to an argument that has merit."

The proposed $800 million wind farm would be an environmentally friendly boon to the region's rising energy needs, according to Cape Wind, providing up to 75 percent of the power for the Cape and nearby islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard.

You know what....ta hell with it. Just build a frickin Nuclear Reactor there and let them glow in their victory!

Bunch of F'ing Hypocritical Douche-bag's. Do as I say not as I do!

Instead of talking about the problems and trying to work through them they are just going to pull behind the scenes legal maneuvers and kill it...NICE!

Kennedy's blatant hypocrisy has drawn the ire of even some of his erstwhile environmental allies.
"It's time for RFK Jr. to lead the Cape and islands towards a clean energy revolution," Greenpeace spokesman Chris Miller tells the Cape Cod Times. "It's about a vision for healthy oceans, not the view from the Kennedy compound."

Where do you like to go fishing? Lake, rivers. Ocean?

Do I or Don't I....that is the dilemma!

Hmmmmmmm

CJ.....does fishing for trouser trout count?

When's the last time he CAUGHT anything?

Maybe the problem is that HerrB's been eating the fish he caught in the Willamette or from Columbia Slough. That would explain everything.

Brain damage.

Hey HerrB, do you raise roller pigeons?

Roller Denny
To Funny!

The only fish there are crap, I mean carp!

Have a look at this:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/04/30/student-designs-highway-power/
You think these could be used on I-84 up around The Dalles and Hood River? Pretty innovative if you ask me!

No matter your political party, personal feelings, or whatever else cloud's your judgement, the World as a whole needs to embrace these renewable non-polluting, non-damaging energy source's and get away from any fossil fuel and Nuclear Fission style reactor's. Here is a very interesting link that lists our possibilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
Whether you support the global warming issue or not the fact of the matter is right in front of you every day, population growth. In 1900 the world population was 1.5 billion and in 2000 it grew to 6 billion. If this rate continues in the year 2100 there could potentially be 24 bullion people in the world. If we don't start now the inevitable result will catastrophic for everyone!

"Where do you like to go fishing? Lake, rivers. Ocean?"

I like them all. But lakes & rivers most often.

Herb

All BS'ing aside Herb. Your opinion of my last post. I won't berate you but please keep politic's out of it.

Global warming is a by-product of out-of-control population expansion. IMHO of course.

Okay, Denny. Fair enough.

As a fisherman, I AM concerned about our environment. And as a Christian, I also take seriously the responsibility to be a good steward of the earth. Not worship it, mind you like many environmentalists, but respect it.

What absolutely infuriates me are the pompous politicians like Mr. Gore and JFK Jr., who fly around spewing far more carbon than you or I would in a lifetime. Yet they dare point their hypocritical fingers at you and me, whilst making beaucoup bucks giving speeches and narrating films about polluters? That's why I get so incensed.

Another issue is that if everyone, including violators like the Chinese and Russians, would work together with us to reduce carbon emissions, fine. Otherwise, we're competing with one arm behind our backs. And remember, they wish to bury us.

Herb

WE need to worry about what we have control over. The US cannot change the world but would be a big influence in other nations getting greener. So what if we initially spend the money for the research so long as they use it for the betterment of mankind. Other nations simply don't have the money or resources to develope these new technologies but should be allowed to take advantage of them when workable. This is not an us against them battle. "This Island Earth" is the only one we have, take care of it now or our grandchildren will pay the price later!

"Another issue is that if everyone, including violators like the Chinese and Russians, would work together with us to reduce carbon emissions, fine."

That is a very good point. I think it would create some momentum for us to take the lead - but with an agreement that they would be close behind.

But back to fishing for a second. Has anyone here ever done any surf casting? I think I would like many elements of it, but have never tried it.

"Has anyone here ever done any surf casting?"

Yeah. It's a lot of fun, but I kept losing a lot of rigs. Maybe I was using the wrong kind of weights...I was using 3 or 4 ounce Pyramids, and the ball weights might be better to avoid getting tangled on rocks.

Herb

Ol' fisher dudes advice.....attach the weight to your rig with string. That way if the weight gets caught it is easy enough to snap the string freeing everything else!

Smart. Great idea.

Herb

Works great when trolling for salmon. That way you don't loose your lure, swivels, and everything....just the weight!

Can't stay apolitical for even one post, eh Herb?:

"What absolutely infuriates me are the pompous politicians like Mr. Gore and JFK Jr., who fly around spewing far more carbon than you or I would in a lifetime. Yet they dare point their hypocritical fingers at you and me, whilst making beaucoup bucks giving speeches and narrating films about polluters? That's why I get so incensed."

Okay, it's clear that this bothers you, and I can see why. You are a strong proponent of practice what you preach. But why are you so hung up on this one point? If you are as concerned about environmental issues as you claim, then I'm guessing you are largely in agreement with the message - yes? If you disagree with the message, then all the jetting around they are doing is of no real consequence. Sure they are pointing fingers, but Bush spent a lot of taxpayer's money a couple years ago bouncing around the country trying to sell us social security reform, essentially pointing fingers at us and telling us how what we were doing was not good enough, and that we need to do things differently. Different topic, but isn't Gore doing the same thing?

BIG difference is that when Bush (or any high ranking WH offical) travels, they are doing it on my dime. When Gore travels, he is using his own money. He makes that money the good old American way - by selling something that people want to buy. And you would agree, he has every right to spend the money he earns as he wishes.

Finally - In Gore's line of work, the kind of travel he does is part of the work he does. Thousands of businesspeople do it every day. Hundreds of high-level businesspeople do it in private jets. Are you saying they have a right to conduct their business is this fashion, but Gore doesn't? Must the product one sells be linked to the way it is sold? Must the CEO of Schwinn ride a bike to work every day or be labeled a hypocrite? Must every one who supports enlarged and extended tours of duty in Iraq join the military, or be labeled a hypocrite? Must a person concerned about salmon runs on the Columbia stop eating NW salmon, or be labeled a hypocrite? Must a person concerned about sweatshop labor in Asia stop buying anything at all made in that region of the world, or be labeled a hypocrite? Must a big rig truck driver who worries about global warming quit driving such a polluting vehicle, or be labeled a hypocrite?

Gore clearly does his job well - he has gotten the attention of the nation (he has certainly gotten yours). Part of doing his job well is to be able to use the best modern transportation available to get to the many places he needs to be in a year. Does Gore wish he could do his job as well by not flying as much as he does? One would imagine so.

Herb, none of us practices what we preach to perfection. We are all hypocrites. Some more than others. If Gore is a hypocrite, he does it on his own dime. Doesn't affect me one bit (except for the fractional percentage of pollution he is creating).

However, what are we to do with Bush? The "We will stand down when they stand up" man who is building gargantuan permanent bases in Iraq. The "No nation building" candidate of 2000 who has spent almost his entire presidency nation building. The "respect the will of the people" president that has continually worked to undermine popularly decided laws at the state level (medical marijuana, assisted suicide). Now, this is hypocricy that I would think you would rail against, because it affects you personally and it is being done with your money.

Of course, I say all this rhetorically. I must remember that you are unchanging and unchangable. I apologize Herb - I imagine all my above points are white noise to you.

"Are you saying they have a right to conduct their business is this fashion, but Gore doesn't?"

There is one major difference between what Mr. Gore & Mr. Kennedy do and the CEO of companies do.

Mr. Gore & Mr. Kennedy rail extensively against others WHO ACT EXACTLY AS THEY THEMSELVES ACT. Show me an executive who is so duplicitous and I'll slam them as well.

Herb

Too Easy!

Just Google "Republican Hypocrite" and take your pick!

http://pandagon.net/2007/06/27/rudy-to-regent-u-the-amount-of-influence-that-you -have-is-really-really-terrific/

Herb, here is a "lefty" site that makes the point I've been trying to make, and does a better job of it:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/21/113953/985

Here's an excerpt:

"...Al Gore works hard to mitigate his impact on the climate. Gore purchases offsets to account for the carbon emissions of all his air travel, just as he did for his movie and his book. He purchases green power for his home, drives a hybrid, and flies commercial when possible. But he's no doubt slipped up and there's no doubt more he could do. A snide, tabloidy cable-TV debate over Gore's personal rectitude is just what conservatives want. It's red meat and character assassination rather than substantive policy debate (i.e., it's FOX).

"But it's utterly beside the point. Nobody -- least of all Al Gore -- would claim that it's possible in today's world to be a high-profile issue advocate without negatively affecting the environment. It's scarcely possible to be a functioning citizen of a developed country without having a substantial environmental footprint."

That would perhaps be fine, Edselehr. But what's with Mr. Gore having a stake in the 'offset' organization from which he buys said 'offsets?'

It's just too smarmy. I'm fine if people want to pile on conservatives for good cause. For example, Mr. Gingerich's actions appear unseemly to me, as do those of Mr. Giuliani with his ex-wife.

But let's not let the left get away with stuff simply because they SAY they're all fine and dandy. Due diligence should be done on any of these politicians and Mr. Gore appears very duplicitous to say the very least.

Herb

Neither the left or the right can claim that their party's causes are championed by angels. Gore is working at being more environmentally friendly, but has a ways to go. Giuliani, Gingrich and numerous other Republican leaders champion "family values" but have been through multiple marriages. Shall Guliani, for example, forever be banned from being able to discuss or promote strong family structure, or traditional values, because he is not the highest exemplar of those values? Can no candidate (from either side) speak for the poor because none lives a life of poverty?

Here's the rub to your argument against Gore. If Gore stepped down as spokesperson for the global warming message, someone else of equal stature would need to take his place tog maintain the same level of attention and action. If it was someone with lesser stature, the message might begin to slide out of public consciousness (we are a fickle people after all). BUT, whomever that replacement person is, they would have to rally the cause in much the same manner that Gore has: lectures, interviews, seminars, conferences - all of which require a traveling lifestyle similar to the one Gore currently lives. And you (and your compatriots) would level the same attacks against that person - "self-serving", "hypocrite", etc. You would continue with the ad hominim "shoot the messenger" criticisms. In fact, you would never be satisfied until there is no spokesperson for global warming at all - only by these environmentalists being silent will your standards of non-hypocrisy be satisfied.

If however, you were satisfied with a different spokesperson (who we must agree would have to fly, travel, live much as Gore does now) then you are admitting that none of this is about Hypocrisy, but about Gore-bashing.

You gotta love Gore, a rich guy who spends most of his time saving the planet. Poor guys like me, who also want to save the planet, have to work.

Like I said before, the planet is in dire straits or headed down that path, regardless of who caused it -- man or nature -- anyone getting in the way of people trying to fix the problem need testicle bashing.

"Shall Guliani, for example, forever be banned from being able to discuss or promote strong family structure, or traditional values, because he is not the highest exemplar of those values?"

That's a fair question.

Given the tattered marriages of both Mr. Gingerich and Mr. Giuliani, I don't expect them to make many pronouncements on the matter. And if they do, they will be roundly [and appropriately] criticized for it. But to address your point, if someone who actually practiced what he or she preached was a spokesperson for the global warming issue, then fine.

Please stop for a moment and consider this:
Do you think that Billy Graham or Mother Teresa would have had the moral authority they did if they hadn't practiced what they preached?

That's the difference between them and someone like Jimmy Swaggart. Sadly, when it comes to following through on one's beliefs, Mr. Gore has more in common with Mr. Swaggart than a Mother Teresa or Billy Graham.

Herb

Being a realist, the "holier than thou" bit just does not go the distance for me.

"But to address your point, if someone who actually practiced what he or she preached was a spokesperson for the global warming issue, then fine."

And this is my point. Living in the most energy-dependent nation in the world, it is impossible to to be carbon neutral short of living off the grid out in the country. But such a person could hardly mount the awareness campaign on global warming that Gore has. Assuming of course that you accept the science that Gore presents, it seems like making us all aware of the dangers is a good thing, and the more effectively Gore gets the word out the better. How else, in our car/jet dependent society should he do this? Is it the private flights he takes that rankle you? Or is it that he is not "carbon neutral"? Because I don't think any of us are, or will be for some time.

I don't jet around the world regularly, but my job doesn't require it. Gore's does.

On your Swaggert/Gore comparison: How did the messages of Graham or Mother Theresa differ from those of Swaggert? If the message is the Word of God, does the messenger matter?

"How else, in our car/jet dependent society should he do this?"

To paraphrase the radio ad where the boss is talking to his employee who needs to meet a lot of clients:

"Webex, Ballard."

So use the internet for virtual meetings, plus TV and Radio. He's already using his movie and plenty of print.

Herb

Gee Herb, I never thought you to be green. You sure there isn't a liberal side to you???

Don't tell anyone, or you'll ruin my ham-fisted reputation.

Herb