uh oh...here we go again.

I don't understand why the Arctic Ice Shelf is being treated as breaking news. It happened 16 months ago! Why is it a top story on MSN today?

I believe (thought I'm not totally sure) that it was just recently noticed in satellite pictures.

"Laurie Weir, who monitors ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, was poring over satellite images in 2005 when she noticed that the shelf had split and separated."

The article is strange. The above quote seems to say that she was looking at satellite images during 2005.

Also read the caption from a photo in the article:

"Part of what was the Ayles Ice Shelf is surveyed last summer by Denis Sarrazin, a researcher with the Center for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec City, Canada. Sarrazin and other researchers visited what is now an island as part of an expedition within a program called ArcticNet."

I also read another article where there was a sentence that basically began as - we have decided to release this news to the public at this time... - but now I can't find it. Sorry.

What about the massive chunk that broke off Antartica a year or so ago? Noboby was talking about that. I have to wonder about this making the news now.

Don;t understand the question. All the legitimate scientists agree that global warming is already having significant effects - and unless we do something will only worsen.

Is this actually news to anyone (except the oil lobby)?

What would be the motive in timing the story to release now?

nytraveler - When I mentioned the movie (Inconvenient Truth) on Xmas Eve to my father-in-law, he said global warming had been proven to be a farse.

There you are, BayouGal. Things have been rather slow around here this week.

Global warming is a fact, not bad science. Did they just release those pictures and that's why it is making news today?

Yesterday morning CNN did a report on the polar bears & global warming and today they covered the artic shelf. I wonder if the "powers that be" at CNN have decided in general that global warming is a story that demands increased coverage.

Global warming is a story that warrants continuous "in our faces" coverage. We are going to have to make serious lifestyle changes if things continue the way they are headed.

Global warming and cooling have been facts for eons.
I'm not selling my XOM, lol.
M

I think this is in the media this week because they just declared Polar Bears an endangered species, and this has something to do with global warming.

Even the Bush administration seems to be coming around to the fact that global warming is truly happening because of the polar bears dying off due to climate change.
It's so sad and we need to do something NOW. It's a shame it's a political issue for some.

Mikemo,

What is a XOM?

XOM = Exxon Mobile

I was talking to someone last week who said global warming might open up the Northwest Passage, which would result in huge savings (in fuel and dollars) for shipping companies.

Does anyone know what lifestyle we'd have to adopt to save the polar bears? It's too bad all those species that went extinct before homosapiens showed up on the planet didn't have us to look out for them.

"It's too bad all those species that went extinct before homosapiens showed up on the planet didn't have us to look out for them."

The obvious difference being that those species did not become extinct BECAUSE of homosapiens.

Is it proven that polar bears are becoming extinct solely because of human activity? I don't think so! But, I'm willing to help. What do I need to do?

Beachbum-
For lack of a better term, global warming has a snowball effect. There is no doubt humans are indirectly responsible for what is happening to the planet. When global warming has an effect on an animal's habitat, that animal can no longer survive as it has without adapting. Unfortunately for the polar bear, it is a cold weather animal and it's food sources along with it's habitat are shrinking at an alarming rate. It is our responsiblity to turn this around. We're the cause, so we should find the solution!

Since you are a "beachbum," you are probably well aware that humans have decimated over 90% of the shark population and sea turtle population. Animals that have been around for over 200 million years we're wiping out in a matter of decades. And with the rising ocean temperatures and with all the waste being thrown into the oceans, the coral and fish life are dying at greater rates than ever before.

Gee, aren't all these species lucky to have us around to save them since we're the main reason they're now threatened and/or extinct! An incovenient truth!

I'm not disputing anything you're saying divewop, but I do question the degree to which humanity has contributed and/or can reverse global warming. And so do scientist friends of mine. Never-the-less, I'll ask again; how can I help?

Beachbum-
I don't have the answers. Then again, if I did I'd probably have a lot of enemies trying to shut me up!

A biologist friend of mine said it in one word, and this was over ten years ago. I have never forgotten what he said. "Overpopulation". The world cannot sustain much more human growth without destroying it's natural resources and other species along the way.

We're at 6 billion people now and by 2050, we'll be at 9 billion. We are just running out of space and resources to manage the growth.
Right now, every 1.6 seconds another acre of wild land is gone and every 2.8 seconds, another human is brought into the world. Scary statistics if you think about it.

Below is from the website:

www.overpopulation.org


Human Behaviors Said to Make Things Worse:

having too many children
agricultural burning
overconsumption of resources
failure to re-cycle
production/disposal of toxic waste
improper disposal of human waste
improper disposal of garbage
mis-use of pesticides
overcrowding
economic dependence on growth
depletion of soils by overfarming
erosion from removal of vegetation
urban sprawl
over-fishing
removal of carbon sinks (trees)
inefficient use of fuel
urbanizing farmland
urban growth where water is scarce
eating meat

So read the list and help out however you can.

I'm a strong believer that every little bit does help and one person can help make a difference.

Here is the supposed reason for today's release:

"The scientists say they are only now making public details after piecing together what occurred using seismic monitors and Canadian and U.S. satellites."

http://tinyurl.com/y5rsmh

This news is a crock. Scientists knew about this for 16 months, but decided to wait to share the details? How many news events are withheld until all the details are known. No wonder there are so many skeptics out there.

One "little thing" we can do it plant trees. It has been shown that increased levels of carbon dioxide directly correlates with increased temperatures. The more trees the more oxygen. Not to mention that they a beautiful addition to any landscape!

Maybe where you live, snowrooster, but I think we've got enough trees (and tree huggers) in Oregon, and we're still planting.

Thanks for the reasoned response, divewop. I'm betting I'm older than you, because I've been hearing/reading about overpopulation since the '60s, and agree that it is most likely the root problem. And when we are all part of the problem, the solution becomes a tough sell.

So, I would imagine, as with other species, overpopulation of homosapiens will eventually take care of itself. But it won't be pretty. And it doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to take care of the planet.

We've got enough trees? Interesting response. I was not aware.

My understanding is that they did not realize that this Ice Shelf had broken free until recently. They were looking at images from 2005 and other data and realized it broke free. It supposedly happened much sooner than anyone ever imagined.

"We've got enough trees?" Note that I'm saying that of Oregon, snowrooster. In fact, in some areas we actually have a tree overpopulation problem, naturally resulting in some of them dying off.

Glad you clarified that Beachbum. But there are never enough trees. Remember the rate of destruction of the wild lands. That includes the rainforests/jungles, which is hugely impacting the earth's eco-system.

1.6 acres every second. So for as many trees that might be planted, it still doesn't make up for the rate of destruction.

Aren't their organizations where you can give $$ towards trees being planted? That way we can all help even if it isn't in our own backyard.

I just saw this article on Yahoo news about the Amazon becoming a grassy savanna in the next 100 years: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_sc/brazil_amazon_warming

Don't know if that's true (it could be), but it does seem like there are a lot of "global warming" articles in the news lately. I personally think the subject is worth investigating, even if in the end it turns out there is no global warming or the dire consequences are over-stated - it's worth looking into.

I recall feeling uncomfortable at the massive clearcuts we saw when we traveled through Oregon and Washington. Seems like those areas could use some more trees.

yeah, MASSIVE over clearing of trees in the pacific northwest. it's completely depressing to drive through and see total bald patches on mountains and stumps of what were once beautiful trees.

so what can we do?

- starting with something us fodorites need to be better at: use the damn washcloth to dry your hands! come on people, do we really need a new paper towel- to be disposed of after one use- for every guest?

- remove your name from mailing lists to cut down on junk mail

- don't be lazy- recycle as much as you possibly can

-buy products that are recycled

-turn lights, appliances, and electronics off when not in use, and when gone for extended periods, unplug.

- don't be so fast to trash things. donate them, keep using them, turn them into something else.

- don't waste water- turn off the faucet, install low flush toilets, take shorter showers, install low-energy use appliances.

- buy energy saving light bulbs

-car pool

- buy a hybrid (I my Prius!)

- compost

-carpool

-walk

- reuse things- like both sides of paper

- plant a garden, bushes, and trees

- lobby, donate, sign petitions

- buy cruelty-free products

- dolphin safe tuna

- eat less meat

- stop building mc mansions

- stop buying SUV's

- sell that damn exxon stock!!

Come on folks, there are thousands of things we can do as individuals to make a difference, or at least have as little impact as possible

Well, maybe Mel Gibson can make a comeback as Mad Max.. or team up with Kevin Costner on a Waterworld XVII, when Bering Sea crabs take revenge for being fed six pack plastic and ruining our damn crab dip.

The Anchorage Daily News had several articles yesterday about the polar bears plight.. as an animal lover, it was sad to read about their habitat.. I just don't know if it's too late or not.

We know the earth has had cycles of warming and cooling, but the amount of chemicals in the air has to be altered and slowed for all our sakes.

I think about the shuttle astronauts who were looking at what seems like a healthy planet, and though I am generally upbeat about life, I worry about what we're leaving to the future generations.

I didn't watch the movie but I've seen clips on tv(I get sidetracked by Al's bottom teeth and eagle eyed glare) but he is clearly passionate about the message and I respect him for that.

Massive loss of trees due to hurricane Katrina. You probably haven't heard much about that, but hard hit areas were piney woods plus bottom lands with tons of hardwoods, and most lost. Not to mention the coastal erosion from salt water intrusion up the oil company (made-made) canals.

Has anyone seen the special about the mother polar bear that trekked over 1000 miles in one season with her cub? I can't remember the name or the station I saw it on, but it is an excellent eye-opening documentary.

lynnjoel, an awful lot of people I know do what is on your list, including me. Not enough evidently.

A thought I had the other day. Write letters to all of the companies that overpackage their goods. Complain! That is one of my biggest gripes and most everyone elses. Let companies know that we don't appreciate it. Just one small step...

C'mon folks, timber is one of the few renewable natural resources. And it may not look great, but clear cutting is an accepted method of harvesting, and has been practiced in Oregon for decades. Come back in a few years, karen, and you'll see those same clearcuts replanted.

What are we supposed to do? It seems as if you are advocating a return to pre-industrialized society. That would certainly take care of overpopulation!

great post, lynnjoel!

Bravo, LynnJoel!

I would also like to add that buying and growing organic foods helps, as well as not using pesticides in your yard at all. Also, try buying more natural cleaning products or make your own. Any less harmful chemicals going back in the system will help!

Someone help me out, here. Are we supposed to cut trees or not? If we do, should we do it in the middle of the forest so you can't see it (and thereby cause environmental damage to build infrastructure to haul the logs out), or next to infrastructure that's already built? And if we don't, how much are you willing to pay for the next house you buy? Or roll of toilet paper?

Lynnejoel makes some great suggestions, but even those could be sold to the whole of the USA, if you're buying what divewop is saying, you've only solved 5% of the problem. And it's only a temporary band-aid solution at that.

If you really believe that global warming is a problem, and can be reversed, claiming an imagined environmental moral high ground is detrimental to your cause. And if you're not willing to sacrifice your livelihood, just as you're asking the fisherman or logger to sacrifice his, your words are hollow.

Beachbum - What I've read about the trees is that you don't want to cut down the old trees.

The companies that plant several fields of trees, and rotate cutting them down and replanting are OK. They are cutting down new trees that aren't contributing that much to the environment.

Unfortunately, there are companies that don't want to wait for the cultivated trees to grow and so they go into the forests and cut the centuries old trees. Because of the size of these trees, it is much more cost effective for the companies to cut them, but it also means that these trees are contributing to the environment far more than the 20 year old tree.

In addition, stay away from the exotic woods that are grown in the Amazon. These are being cut down and are irreplaceable - every one that's cut down hurts the environment.

A 300 year old tree provides far more benefit to the health of our planet than a 20 year old tree. If we cut down all the 300 year old trees, we can't plant enough new trees to compensate. Just compare a tree in a new neighborhood to a tree in a well-established neighborhood. Look at how many more leaves are on the older trees. Now multiply that by a few hundred years and you can see just how much these old trees do.

Even trimming a tree here without a permit will result in serious jail time.
Additionally, we were on the Costalegre last week and the ongoing efforts to protect the sea turtles' eggs and hatchlings are stunning.
Too bad there is no permitted international investment in oil and gas to make Mexico self sufficient.
The emergency plans at the San Diego zoo include "taking out" the Polar Bears first.

OK beachbum,
since you seem to profess in playing the devil's advocate to everyone's theories and responses, let's hear what you think and what you would do to balance the co-existence of man and the environment.

To follow through on lynnjoel's excellent remenders;
here's a good website for anyone interested in getting more active in sustainablility in their own lives:

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_actionitems.asp

And there are many, many books and publications out there on this subject- you can find some by googling "Things You Can Do To Save the Planet"

beachbum - I've been to Oregon twice 10 years apart, and sorry, I could tell no difference in the clearcuts.

I've seen some examples of re-planting by the sides of highways - they don't look anything like the old growth forests. They look like tree farms.

You state learcutting is an acceptable practice? To whom? Lumber companies?

It seems beachbum is just being combative. He/She asks what can be done, but doesn't really seem to have any desire to do anything but suggest road blocks. It is too bad this has to be political for some people - just because one party may be pushing an issue, it is an issue that affects us all and everyone needs to face that.

Who knows how much we can do to eliminate global warming at this point, but the least we can do is try.

Most forests in Oregon are government owned and managed. Tracts of timber are sold to lumber companies for logging. So yes, karen, clearcutting is an acceptable forest management practice for both lumber companies and government. If tracts aren't clear cut, new plantings have much less chance of survival. And of course replanted clearcuts look like tree farms. That's what they are. But better to harvest trees near roads than to have to build new ones, causing greater environmental harm.

I'm not trying to be combative or make this a political issue, snowrooster. To the contrary, I might think that was your purpose in starting this thread.

Nor am I pooh-poohing suggestions to preserve environment, divewop. But if your biologist friend is right that overpopulation is the root problem, and the USA comprises only about 5% of the planet's population, no matter what we do, how effective can we be in reversing/mitigating its impacts.

So, the elephant in the room is what's to be done to reduce/reverse population growth? Anyone have suggestions?

A world run by women(I saw it on an original Star Trek episode)..

*I think the men could be selected for breeding, IF they had the right stuff..

*Other than that, they could be used for amusement and excercise

*Okay, sorry gang, I just woke up and hate to see bickering when we should be figuring out what to gorge on for New Years, J

My purpose in starting the thread was to hear thoughts of others on an important issue of which I increasingly became more aware. I was shocked when my father-in-law wrote it off as a "proven farse" and was wondering how others felt.

While the US may contain a relatively low % of the world's population, we consume a significantly higher relative level of resources. The US is one of the few countries that has not signed the Kyoto Treaty which aims to curb global warming.

DebitNM's "uh oh...here we go again" post was because global warming was cussed and discussed in a threads a week or two ago.

No question that the US presently consumes more than its share of resources, and contibutes more to the global environmental mess... But it's not we who are cutting down rainforests in the Amazon basin. And I wonder what happens when China becomes more fully industrialized. And India....

Why are you focusing on global warming when it's just a symptom of the problem?

beachbum~ on the China aspect, I have had a BIL there for three years, heading an American co. trying to sell wood products for home building..

..it has not been successful because they have to import the wood, it's quite expensive compared to concrete and what the materials used prior were, they don't care about quality, etc.etc..

the job location was not of his choosing but an incentive for his career.. I think it was a three year minimum and they wanted five years total on this before they rotate another person..

I guess you could be relieved as it saves many million of trees(many come from Canada I believe)..

Sorry to repeat a topic already discussed. I guess I missed it the first time around - my apologies for not checking in daily.

Global warming is not a sympton, it is the result. The problem isn't all the people, it's what all the people are doing. Why not try to be part of the solution instead of insisting there isn't one?

Snowrooster,

You posted to the orginal global warning thread so you did't miss it.

This topic has been discussed to death in the last month and it got pretty ugly.

Some more stats on how the US rates among resource consumption.

The average American consumes 20 times as much in natural resources as the average African and if all the people consumed at the level of high-income countries, the planet could support only 1.8 billion people, not the actual 6.5 billion.
It is doubtful if measures to encourage family planning will restrain the world's population. Leaders must come up with intelligent, creative, inventive measures to discourage births.
Every 11 seconds another person is added to the US population.
The US has 5% of the world's population but accounts for nearly a quarter of global emissions.

This country is supposed to be the country that sets the example for peace, democracy, prosperity, etc., so why can't we be the country that sets the example for the environment?

clueless - You are correct, however my post was only the fifth in the thread so I was not aware of how heated it had become (I just did a search and read some of that thread myself). My interest in the topic was peaked only just recently after seeing the movie and increased news coverage.

Snowrooster,

My apologies.

I think it's great you brought it up again, snowrooster.
It's such an important subject, but it really doesn't seem to be in most people's conciousness around here... I was talking to friends about recycling last week at a party, and they looked at me like I was crazy, lol! My friend told me it's good I recycle, so she doesn't have to! Jeez! I know, I'm no fun!

Honestly, it really hasn't been in my consciousness until recently. I don't do nearly all of the things on the list of things we should do to make a change, but I'm going to try to do more. I think that's all we can ask - for each of us to try to do a little bit more. Having only recently become someone who brings up this issue in conversation, I am surprised at how little people seem to care. But then again, I shouldn't be, because it is pretty new to me too.

Yes, global warming is in part a result of human activity. But what happens if human activity doubles or triples simply as a result of population growth? What kinds of lifestyle changes will we then have to make to preserve the planet?

Not sure I understand what you're advocating, divewop. What would it take for the US to set an example? Restrict families to two children? Cut back consumption by 50%? One car per family? And how do you sell that? To people on this thread, even?

I think the US is taking a lead role on the environment. I've not been, but have friends who return from China and Korea telling of wearing masks to protect themselves from breathing bad air, and using umbrellas as a shield against acid rain. Are we supposed to impose our regulations on those societies?

I don't have answers either, but I sure hope our kids are a lot smarter than we. Otherwise, I see a big train wreck coming.

"What would it take for the US to set an example?"

We could join 169 other countries and sign the Kyoto Protocol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

My late dad told me that he thought people who had large families were selfish.. I think he was thinking about the planet's resources and had his reasons.

A tax incentive for smaller families(in the US anyway)and improved birth control education would help.. but some religions are against practiced b.c., so how do you allow people their freedom/reproduction rights and such?

Didn't China change it's policy about one child families? I am not sure.

I am concerned about air quality, food safety and doing things locally to help.
The environmentalist lobby is powerful in Alaska, and with the oil fields up North(Anwar), watchdog groups in Cook Inlet and PWS, and wildlife protection/regulation,(seafood industry as well).

Alaskans have been affected on a large scale by Washington's decision makers.. some good, some misguided..

You are right, this planet is headed for one helluva train wreck. That's why this is being brought to the forefront now. People won't be able to say they weren't warned, will they?

How can you say the US is taking a lead role in the environment? I guess the stats aren't justification enough we're the biggest culprits adding to the problems of CO2 emissions, etc. Or are the stats fabricated too?

And yeah, we could cut our consumption tremendously and still live very comfortably. Do you realize how much waste we have in this country?

I don't understand where you're coming from either. Since you don't have the "answers", are you giving everyone else a hard time just because you can? Or do you just like playing devil's advocate and yanking our chain?

We could go 'round and 'round forever about this like some have mentioned. Is it worth it? Yeah, if it changes the minds of one or two people or makes someone more aware of what they can do to help conserve resources.

Good ideas can also have a snowball effect and if one or two ideas mentioned in this thread hit home with someone, and they do something to modify their lifestyle and/or to help , then it's worth it.
And so on and so on...

Believe it or not snowrooster, some environmentalists agreed that the US shouldn't sign the Kyoto Protocol.

I'm not trying to yank anyone's chain divewop. I'm simply saying that, if you think overpopulation is the root problem, until you solve that, pretty much whatever else we do is only a temporary band-aid.

The other point is that, if the US is to really set the example, the economic and lifestyles changes required will be more than most of us will be willing to give up. Using your data, If we're to consume only our share, we need to cut our consumption back about 75%.

beachbum - I would not hold up the way the government has managed our national forests as an example of good practice. Just b/c it's government policy doesn't make it a good one.

I keep hearing so much about the global warming debate - some don't think it exists; others do.

IF global warming does not exist (I believe that it does, but let's just say that it doesn't) - what do people like Al Gore and the scientists who support global warming "get" out of claiming something exists when it doesn't?

I do not buy that research dollars is all behind the global warming claims. And it certainly doesn't explain Al Gore's concern with the issue.

beachbum - So I guess what you are saying is, why bother doing little things to improve the situation if we can't fix it completely?

Geez snowrooster, where did I say that? I've been doing most of the stuff on Lynnejoel's list for years. You're the one that's a little late to the game. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that you're part of the problem. Which is precisely why the real solutions to global warming will never sell.

karen, We've been cutting timber in Oregon for a century or so, now. Forestry management is a science here. Just because you see clearcuts, doesn't mean we don't know what we're doing.

Wow - you've been doing most of the stuff on the list for years (buy hybrid, carpool, walk, lobby, donate, sign a petition,buy energy saving light bulbs - I know you don't plant trees cause you already said you have too many where you live)? I must say I am shocked (and somewhat skeptical given some of your other comments). I am definitely part of the problem and I don't believe I've ever said otherwise, but I'm going to try to do my part to solve it. It's a shame you have such a glass half empty perspective.

"I'm not disputing anything you're saying divewop, but I do question the degree to which humanity has contributed and/or can reverse global warming. And so do scientist friends of mine. Never-the-less, I'll ask again; how can I help?"

How very ironic and convnenient that you now claim to have been doing so much to help for years! Something stinks in here!!

You sure do know how to spin stuff, snowrooster. If you knew how to read, you'd see that I've not contradicted myself in any way. Do you need to be led with a leash?

Oh yes, please teach me to read and lead me with your wisdom. divewop was correct - chain yanking indeed.

beachbum - you and I will just have to agree to disagree re: clearcutting.

You keep saying that you've been doing this for so long in Oregon that it's "down to a science". I just don't think b/c something has been done for a while makes it credible as good practice. We seem to just keep talking in circles.

OK...just for s**ts and giggles, let's just say we do cut our consumption back 75%. How would that really affect our every-day life? Would we really suffer that badly?

Upon visiting one of my favorite countries, New Zealand, I had the opportunity to talk to some of the locals about their way of life. When we talked about the US and what we had readily available to us on an every-day basis compared to what they had, they were astounded by our choices.

Sure they didn't have some of the "choices" we have, but damned if they don't have the best dairy, eggs, chocolate, coffee, meat pies, etc., that I've ever tasted. Wonder why that is? (rhetorical)

And granted our population is significantly larger, but really, how much variety and choice do we need to survive?

How many Christmas catalogs do we need to get every year, how many types of paper, brands of paper towels, SUV's, televisions, etc?

Or does this all go hand-in-hand with the pressure of creating jobs for the ever-increasing population?

When is enough, enough?

good question, divewop!

And to go back to the OP, I dare all the naysayers to at least watch An Inconvenient Truth. Even if you're unimpressed, you'll be more educated in arguing against those of us who believe climate change is really today's #1 issue...

Ve are Ameddicans, divewop. Ve are entitled. Enough is NEVER enough!!

lol, Lucie!

You prefaced it with the "s**ts and giggles" comment, divewop, but I think those are close to the right questions. Too bad we couldn't get there without the discussion being... umm... sidetracked.

But, as Lucie humorously implies, how many of us would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices. When Al Gore and others downsize from however many homes they have to 600 sf apartments, we'll know they're serious.

karen, okay... But forest management really is a science here. Kids get college degrees in it.

snowrooster, if it will make you feel better, go plant a tree. Then pat yourself on the back, and go back to what you were doing before.

frankie, I don't think anyone's argued that climate change is not an issue. Global warming is a fact. What is at issue is humanity's role in causing it, and whether or not it can be reversed. With scientific support on all sides of the argument, it's understandable that people won't agree.

What puzzles me is that, while there appears to be no argument that the planet is becoming overpopulated, there's little or no discussion about how to solve it. Denying the problem won't make it go away.

"What puzzles me is that, while there appears to be no argument that the planet is becoming overpopulated..."

Interesting you say that beachbum, because that is as you say, the "elephant" in the room.

Most government officials won't readily admit that overpopulation is probably the top contender of issues to be resolved.

If they do admit it, then it's kinda like, now we have to try and do something about it. Where do we go from there?..

So do they want to admit it and take the necessary steps to put some plans into action, or do they keep turning a blind eye?

Very reminscent of "genocides" which no one wants to admit are in fact "genocides." Past or present included.

It seems like it's a wait 'til everything is totally out of control and then try and do something. And the collateral damage and carnage then speak for themselves.

"Ve are Ameddicans, divewop. Ve are entitled. Enough is NEVER enough!!"

Speak for yourself.

beachbum - Not sure why you need to be so condescending. I'm sorry if you think I am "late to the game" and congratulate you for having done so much for so long to help our environment. It is evidently you who deserves the pat on the back, no? Forgive me, but as you mentioned you have been reading about and have been aware of this problem since the 60's, I was not even born then. I hope others who may have been recently awakened to this issue are not chastised by folks like you for not doing enough. I maintain that if we all do a little bit more, it may not solve the problem but it is better than doing nothing. Happy New Year to all!!

Sigh.... again with the spin, snowrooster. I think you're the one who admitted being late to the game.

And I wasn't "chastising"; just responding to your repeated barbs. You apparently really don't like it when someone has a different opinion than yours.

But Happy New Year to you, too.

beachbum, it always seems to me like you're the one with the personal barbs & chastising people, rather than discussing the issue. I well remember you calling me "arrogant" on another thread ... not a great way to get people on your side in an arguement...

LOL, frankie, I thought I might have struck a chord (cord?) when that post was yanked. And I'm sincerely sorry if it offended you.

Please do tell me though, where in this or other threads I've thrown barbs except in self defense? I don't want to come off that way.

I hope you're not implying I asked that thread be pulled, beachbum, I can take being called arrogant, though I did think you were rude.
IMO it's generally best to stay on topic rather than get personal.

Oh, more crapola about the "Inconvenient Lie." Yawn, boring.

Found this interesting update on Al Gore's house....I pulled 5 threads before this one and all frozen...

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore's upscale neighborhood granted the environmental activist approval Tuesday to install 33 solar panels on the roof of his mansion.

The city of Belle Meade, Tennessee, had blocked his application until new rules were approved unanimously late Tuesday, said Gore spokesman Chris Song. The city, located within metropolitan Nashville, said the panels must be placed in areas where they can't be seen by neighbors.

Gore, who starred in the documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" about global warming, already buys enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

He is also upgrading the furnace, windows, and light switches, as well as installing new floor radiant heat and solar vents, to improve the home's energy standards, said Kalee Kreider, a Gore spokeswoman.

The home, bought by Gore in 2002, is more than 70 years old and illustrates the challenges of renovating an older home to conserve more energy, Kreider said.

"It's obviously easier to build a green home from the get-go," she said. "When you purchase an older home, these retrofits take a lot longer."

I saw that earlier too. Good for him.

That's fantastic. Al Gore is buying carbon credits -- from his own company. How special is that.

LOL! What does that have to do with his house renovations? Now his house basically serves as a stand-alone power generator with no carbon emissions. His previous credits went to buy equipment to provide more green energy. Good for him on that too.

Why don’t you do what you do best and go talk to his hairdresser? Maybe you can get some dirt that way?

Maybe you can get some dirt that way?

No one is looking for any "dirt" as you put it -- just exposing the hypocrisy.

Good for you Budman!
You keep up the good work digging through garbage cans looking for hair salon reciepts!

Hey! While you're in there; see if you can find 5 million missing emails!

I think all the libs should send a contribution to the "Breck Girl." He needs another Spa treatment.

< send a contribution to the "Breck Girl." >

LOL. I knew it was only a matter of time before you dissolved to name calling.

Budman, the most hypocritical of all exposing (or at least he thinks he is)hypocricy. Amazing how there is absolutely NO hypocrisy from the right. Too bad everyone can't be that perfect.

If you could cite any failings of the cons you so dearly love and support, you might actually gain some credibility. Something which you currently have absolutely none. GWBs lack of spending vetos doesn't count as it is far too obvious.

Unfortunately, as with most loyal dittoheads, you can only recite the far-right rants you hear on the rush limpbaugh program.

Perhaps if this country is too foul for you, you should seek asylum elsewhere. "America, love it or leave it"

MvK

Just an affectionate parody.

Perhaps if this country is too foul for you, you should seek asylum elsewhere. "America, love it or leave it"

No, I think I'll stay -- still waiting for those on the "left" who said they would leave but haven't -- to leave.

"Just an affectionate parody"

That always come in handy when out of soundbites.

Still no credibility.

Never had any, never will. Ever think of opening that mind, or would that cost you too much money? Maybe if you were aware there is no tax on it, you'd get some.

MvK