[Jim Colyer]

I saw Al Gore's film about global warming. It is personal and convincing. Gore sees the burning of fossil fuels as increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. As a result, the atmosphere is retaining more of the sun's heat. Temperature is rising. Glaciers are receding. Polar caps are melting. Ocean water is warming and driving hurricanes. Gore links Katrina to global warming. He compares his warning to that of the Nazi threat before World War II and to the warning of the effects of smoking. He invokes Carl Sagan's pale blue dot as an image of the smallness of our planet and its vulnerability. Man has become a force of nature with the capacity for implementing destructive climate changes unless he alters old habits.

I am sympathetic to Al Gore's cause, At the same time, there is another inconvenient truth. This is the truth of 9/11 and the fact that we are better off with a Republican government as long as there are Muslim extremists whose goal it is to destroy the United States. These fanatics do not differentitate between our political parties. They would kill us all. George W. Bush has defended and continues to defend America. If Bin Laden and al Qaeda have such little regard for human life, they are certainly impervious to the effects of global warming.

SAVE THE PLANET http://jimcolyer.com/@tracks/20/lofi.mp3

[Edella]

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

...there is another inconvenient truth.This is the truth of 9/11 and the fact that we are better off with a Republican government as long as there are Muslim extremists whose goal it is to destroy the United States.

I'm not convinced we are better off with a Republican government.Nonetheless,could you tell me why you you think republicans would (do) handle the current crises better than another political party?

Ed

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I am sympathetic to Al Gore's cause, At the same time, there is another inconvenient truth. This is the truth of 9/11 and the fact that we are better off with a Republican government as long as there are Muslim extremists whose goal it is to destroy the United States.
SAVE THE PLANET http://jimcolyer.com/@tracks/20/lofi.mp3

I disagree with your conclusion. I believe the draining of the world wide goodwill the USA enjoyed after 9/11 could have been used to conduct a war on terror.

Instead, we started after OBL. Then stopped and invaded a countly which was unfriendly to OBL. The results thus far:

Weakened Iran's enemies allowing them to push ahead with nuclear power/weapons.

Used up our global clout/sypathy in a misdirected war against a foe that was NOT developing nuclear weaponry.

Because we have used up that clout, and our military manpower is stretched thin, and our governments arguments for invading Iraq were wrong we now can't do the same thing with Iran.

And we have given Al-queda a new recruitment platform in Iraq.

We threw our weight around when we shouldn't have. And now that we need to, we can't.

Now, I am not saying the democrats can do any better. Personnally I think a different republican administration (one not lead by Bush) would have done better.

As for An Inconvenient Truth, the terrorists will be as much at the mercy of it as the rest of us.

[TheBigDog]

While I may disagree with your assertions on global warming, I do agree with your priority of issues.

Having said that, I would like to inject some honesty into the discussion of Global Warming. It is not ever about saving the planet. The planet will survive man. And it is absurdly optimistic to think that we could destroy the planet or its ability to support life. Even the most nightmarish speculative nuclear holocaust would not destroy the planet's ability to support life.

When will someone finally say what it is that they are trying to save?

Are we trying to save man? Man will survive global warming as we have the use of technology to adapt. That on top of the fact that biologically we are some of the best adapted beings to the widest range of elements, we will survive, and we will thrive, even if there are hard times along the way.

Are we trying to save animals and plants? Global climate change has been cyclic and extreme long before man has been around. It has caused mass extinctions time and time again. 99.9% of the life that has enjoyed the earth is already extinct. What is so special about the life now?

Bikini Island was nuked repeatedly. It is teaming with life. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster in history killing a quarter million or more people. The surrounding area is teaming with life. As climate changes and one species is forced out of an area, another species, better adopted to the climate works its way in and thrives. That is the way of things. It has been the way of things, and will continue to be the way of things. The only thing that is constant is change. And to presume that we as humans have some responsibility to prevent the planet from changing is frankly ludicrous.

Bill

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

When will someone finally say what it is that they are trying to save?

Money and Agriculture.

I believe that most people concerned with the possible threat of global warming are concerned that it will result in at least two undesired effects:

• A rise in sea level. While minor in terms of long-term ecological impact, and unlikely to cause direct and sudden loss of human life, some people fear that the unequal impact of a rise in sea level on low-lying cities, states, and countries due to ocean inundation vs. higher-lying ones will be economically and politically destabilizing. The prospect the infrastructure of NY, NY, USA, having to be overhauled to handle even a 2 m rise in high tide local sea level is troubling to the people who would be involved. The prospect of having to abandon real estate in NY, or even greater developed areas of low-lying northern European nations, is troubling. That their economic misfortune would be other’s good fortune is little comfort, and provides little reassurance that such a change in urban population could be accomplished smoothly.
• A reduction in temperature in land near the North Atlantic coast. The climate of England, and much of the American Northeast, is warmer than the same latitude on the Pacific coast, because the North Atlantic Current carries heat to these regions. Evidence indicates that the melting of north polar ice, while not increasing global sea levels, is reducing this warming effect. Were the NAC to “stall” significantly further south than usual, agriculture in Ireland, England, Iceland, Greenland, and the American Northwest could be severely impacted, effecting in turn much of the local economies of these regions. This is troubling to people who live in these regions

People have endured times of hardship due to changes in climate many times in recorded history. Nonetheless, these times were hard and unwelcome. If it is possible to avoid such changes through less costly research, changes in atmospheric emission, and possibly other measures, this should be done. To greater and lesser extents, nearly all developed nations are doing such research and taking measures to reduce emissions, despite rhetoric denying that such efforts are sensible or necessary.

I’ve not seen “An Inconvenient Truth”, but understand that it presents the science and politics of global warming fairly well. Such public education is, I think, desirable, regardless of any accompanying political influence.

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

I am sympathetic to Al Gore's cause, At the same time, there is another inconvenient truth. This is the truth of 9/11 and the fact that we are better off with a Republican government as long as there are Muslim extremists whose goal it is to destroy the United States.

I believe this “truth” is flawed by a False_dicotomy fallacy. It supposes that we must chose between sound ecological policy, and sound defense policy. While this would be true if nations were involved in an all-out war, such as WWII, I don’t think it’s true of the present situation, in which dramatically less of nations’ total resources are required for “the war on terror”.

In addition, it assumes that Democrats cannot make sound defense policy, nor Republicans sound environmental policy. While likely true of some Democrats and Republicans, I believe this is a stereotype, and not evidenced by historical and current leaders in all levels of US government, most of whom are members of these two parties.

The present US Executive administration is troubling to me, in that it appears to be engaging in an effort to redefine the relationship of the branches of government in an opportunistic and unconstitutional way, and move the US toward a theocratic form of government. I believe this poses a far greater risk to the quality of lives of the People of the US and the world than militant Islamic fundamentalism.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Are we trying to save man? Man will survive global warming as we have the use of technology to adapt. That on top of the fact that biologically we are some of the best adapted beings to the widest range of elements, we will survive, and we will thrive, even if there are hard times along the way.

We'll survive, sure. But how? Our (the U.S.'s) lifestyle depends on being able to import cheap crap from China, and veggies from Mexico.

Do you like $20 Twinkies?

Best to stop hard times before they start.

TFS

[Zythryn]

Most likely humanity as a whole will survive. However, if the worse case scenerios come to pass millions, perhaps even billions of humans will perish.

The earth will most certainly survive. What may not is our culture and reletive ease of life.

Economic chaos is very likely if the weather patterns undergo dramatic changes and gets more and more extreme.

Pragmatically, we are looking out for our own way of life. Those that are more generous also are concerned about the potential loss of life.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

This is the truth of 9/11 and the fact that we are better off with a Republican government as long as there are Muslim extremists whose goal it is to destroy the United States.
These fanatics do not differentitate between our political parties. They would kill us all. George W. Bush has defended and continues to defend America.
http://jimcolyer.com/@tracks/20/lofi.mp3

You have to be kidding!!
America is creating more and more Terrorists every day.
Has America ever considered sitting down and talking to the Muslim extremists?
No
So suffer

[maikeru]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

You have to be kidding!!
America is creating more and more Terrorists every day.
Has America ever considered sitting down and talking to the Muslim extremists?
No
So suffer

Unfortunately, I think certain issues cannot be discussed productively with the Muslim extremists, such as the desire of bin Laden to convert the USA to Islam (to prevent further attacks), the stated aim of al-Qaeda to reestablish an Islamic caliphate covering much of Asia, North Africa, and Spain, etc. But considering that it's not only al-Qaeda, but dozens, perhaps, hundreds of terrorist groups who work toward the same end, who is America supposed to talk to? All, some, or none?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/ixworld.html

I do think certain issues can be addressed and solved, such as the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories which has so inflamed Muslims, Western incursions on their way of life, presence of US troops in their countries, etc. America should work these out through the proper people and processes. Not through dictators, conmen, or zealots as has all too often been the case.

I ask that you do not consider the acts of America's government the feelings, thoughts, or will of all her people. Most of us know we're dying of cancer.

[maikeru]

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

This is the truth of 9/11 and the fact that we are better off with a Republican government as long as there are Muslim extremists whose goal it is to destroy the United States. These fanatics do not differentitate between our political parties. They would kill us all. George W. Bush has defended and continues to defend America. If Bin Laden and al Qaeda have such little regard for human life, they are certainly impervious to the effects of global warming.

SAVE THE PLANET http://jimcolyer.com/@tracks/20/lofi.mp3

A government that lies to its people about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, a government that harbors child predators and covers up for them, a government that befriends dictators and murderers in the name of the War on Terror, a government that employs lobbyists and conmen who use the Mafia for assassination, is no government I want. Those are the inconvenient truths.