Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Massawyrm's Incredibly Incendiary INCONVENIENT TRUTH Review!!

Hola all. Massawyrm here.

Here’s something I just had a hard time wrapping my mind around. An Al Gore movie. Seriously, an hour and a half lecture by, and a documentary about, ex-Vice President and Presidential Candidate Al Gore and his views on global warming. How can a guy known as wooden at best, and positively robotic at worst, make a film that doesn’t make Lars Von Trier movies look like action packed, tightly paced, thrill rides?

Well, because the Gore-bot 2000 is dead. A relic. A thing of the past. Al Gore is far from what he used to be. An Inconvenient Truth not only proves to make a compelling call to action about global warming, but also makes Al Gore seem like something he hasn’t before to many people. Human.

Now, I typically try to keep my religion and politics out of my reviews, knowing just how incendiary such subjects can be. Especially on the Internet. And frankly, film is incendiary enough stuff that I don’t feel I need to throw gas on the fire. But here, with An Inconvenient Truth, I feel it is almost inescapable. For me, at least.

Those of you who know me well or read my blog know that I am an incredibly politically minded guy, and even more importantly, a Republican. A lifelong, old school, traditionally conservative (which doesn’t mean what many of you think it means), Republican. And I have SERIOUS ISSUES with Al Gore. Have for nearly two decades now. Granted, most of my fervor stems from his support of his wife Tipper, who founded the PMRC (the guys who put labels on records and CDs) and crusaded to ban offensive albums, films and television shows.

And for a traditionally conservative Republican pop culture junkie – the idea of censoring ANYTHING is a cardinal sin – especially at the federal level. Throw onto that his views on using the military as a peacekeeping force in other countries and his part in the Clinton Administration and you start to paint a picture of exactly the kind of politician I have problems with. So as you can probably guess, I voted against him in 2000 (you know, back when Bush still talked like a Republican) and hoped that would be the last I heard of him.

Needless to say, the idea of waking up early on a Friday morning to listen to Al Gore talk for 100 minutes was not exactly my idea of fun. But like I said, I just couldn’t wrap my mind around it. I mean, this sort of thing just isn’t done. This isn’t a Documentary about a politician who was followed around by a docu-crew. Gore plays a large part in the making of and the structure of this film – both as a subject and creatively. And Ex-Politicians, especially Ex-Vice Presidents, are supposed to fade into obscurity. They take cush jobs at large firms that do world wide business, or sit on the board of large corporations. They don’t continue the crusades they failed at when in power. Not unless they’re Jimmy Carter. But Carter’s a whole different kind of cat – the only President in modern history to be a better man after his presidency than he was during it. Vice-Presidents don’t make films. Not like this. It was something so insane I HAD to watch. I couldn’t pass it up. It was like one of those links your buddies post that reads: Click here to see something so vile it will scrape out your soul. You can’t help yourself. And neither could I.

Now, understandably, this film has stirred up a lot of controversy. Unfortunately, the controversy is far less scientific than it is political. You see, somewhere along the line my party stopped being the party that quoted the founding fathers. Somewhere along the line we stopped being the party of a sound, cohesive philosophy that virtually every republican held, despite our personal, issue-based beliefs. Somewhere along the line “Ditto Rush” stopped meaning, “Wow, Rush said exactly what I’ve been saying for years” and became “Well, if that’s what Rush said, that’s what I think too.”

And already the smear campaign has started, encouraging Republicans to boycott this movie. Because apparently, we aren’t allowed to make up our minds for ourselves anymore. The party line is what we’re told to believe, not what we actually believe. And the party line on Global Warming is “We don’t have enough evidence to support a position either way, so why risk hurting industry for something that’s just a theory?”

Well, with An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore sets out to challenge that way of thinking and manages to turn what could easily be a 100 minute episode-of-Nova snoozefest into a riveting conversation and argument on the need to reduce our CO2 emissions. This is effectively a filmed version of the lecture he’s been giving over the last six years, inter-cut with a series of personal anecdotes shot at locations pivotal in Gore’s life. Using stories of his past as metaphors, Gore manages to introduce us to himself in a whole new light, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for arguments made later in the film. And those arguments are incredibly simple – elegantly simple in fact.

While not entirely unassailable (as arguments go), what seemed like a “Save the Spotted Owl” plea for environmental consciousness rapidly became a wrecking ball of rhetoric that tore down common myths and hit every point in the argument, from personal cost, industry and the technology needed. This isn’t some crazy, left wing, bleeding heart, tree hugger plea – this is an honest to god, very well thought out evaluation of facts, figures and concepts. And its an argument, valid or not, that is so good, it should be heard by members of all political slants and bents.

This film, this lecture, comes across as very personal; a passionate argument in the old school sense of the word. This isn’t the stodgy, stiff shirt Al Gore we all remember – this is an Al Gore who jokes openly, is warm and entertaining and speaks with pain about his loss in 2000. You can easily tell that he’s a changed man, someone who while on the track to the White House gave us what he thought we wanted, and now, with nothing to lose, can let it all hang out and just be himself.

And the man before us in the film, well, he’s one I quite like now. He’s been moved from the category of people I never hope to meet into the realm of “Man, I’d really love to pick this guys brain over a cup of coffee.” And believe me, that’s a BIG deal. This is a guy I believed stood against most everything I believe, and while he still may, I no longer think it’s because of anything but that we want different things and have different priorities.

And man, can I understand why he’s getting the BIG QUESTION in every interview he does. Because if there was ever a way to make a HUGE comeback, this movie would be it. If Gore was able to take a dyed in wool conservative who practically spit when he said the guys name and not only earned his respect, but endeared him to him, I can only imagine what this film would do to the independents in this country – let alone the liberal base that feels let down by him.

If enough people saw this film, and he kept up this kind of attitude, he could probably win the nomination in a walk. But personally, I hope he stays true to his word and chooses not to run. This crusade seems to be a much better fit, and it strikes me that he can accomplish more good outside the system than he ever did within it.

The film is simply great. It changed my opinion on a great number of things, educated me with an argument that properly debunks a lot of misconceptions, and turns some really dry material into something that never for one second bored me. Gore really seems to know his stuff, but more importantly, really knows how to explain it. That doesn’t mean Gore’s argument is by any means unassailable.

There’s plenty to be said to counter both the science and the rhetoric. But it’s a good argument, and its one worth hearing. (Please note that as I am in no way, shape or form a scientist of any kind, I make no claims to the validity or truth of global warming. But, as a film critic, I am afforded the ability to say that Global Warming lends itself to pretty good filmmaking. Except for Waterworld…and the more ridiculous parts of The Day After Tomorrow. And anything by Paul W.S. Anderson, whether he’s done a global warming film yet or not.)

Now, if I have one complaint about this film, it’s one of my usual gripes. The marketing. Sometimes I feel like I’m beating a dead horse, but this really has to be addressed. If you look at the poster for the film, or it’s unbelievably dramatic trailer…well, it’s certainly jarring. It has this immediacy to it. It uses the work ‘Shock’ about a billion and six times. The tagline is “By far, the most terrifying movie you will ever see.” And yet, it’s not. The marketing is scary, and probably will do more to scare people away than anything else.

In truth, this movie isn’t very shocking (except in regards to the aforementioned personality graft Gore received post election.) Instead, rather than sending you out of the film thinking “Oh, God we’re so fucked” it manages to end on a very positive note that leaves you thinking, “Man, I really need to change my light bulbs and get my car tuned up.” It makes you want to write your congressman, because, it can be done. Gore ultimately reminds us that it is a number of small changes - not big ones - that can really have a lasting effect, if performed by enough people. I kinda wish they’d go back to the ‘penguins in the desert’ poster, as much as I thought it was silly, because it is much closer in theme to what this movie is trying to say.

This isn’t a scare piece; it’s a motivational piece and a rational argument. I just wish they’d start treating it like one (because nothing says rational like penguins. In a desert.)

I highly recommend this film to anyone old enough to understand it. It is probably one of the sanest, most coherent, and from the heart pieces of rhetoric you’re bound to hear or see in an election year. Is it propaganda? Of course it is. It’s a persuasive argument made with images and style. But that by no means makes it something worth ignoring.

If anyone sees this, I think it most important for those of my own party, if for any reason other than hearing this argument from this point of view, that we begin to once again – as a party – think for ourselves and argue from our own knowledge of the opposing opinion rather than what we’re told it is. If we continue to let Coulter, O’Reilly and Savage do our thinking and speaking for us, then it will be left to the Al Gore’s of the world to make the only sane, informed arguments – and we’ll be left with few who can actually argue against them.

And I’d like to take this time to personally thank Al Gore for inventing the internet, without which I would be unemployed ;)

Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. I know I will.


OMFG! Massawyrm is a Republican! I can never trust his reviews again! OMFG! Massawyrm THINKS he’s a Republican, but clearly isn’t! I can Never trust his reviews again! Blah, blah, blah. Sing that song to someone who cares…or better yet, e-mail me here.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 30, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST


    by cyanide christ

  • May 30, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST


    by Kung Fu Hustler a Republican!

  • May 30, 2006, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Shouldn't there have been a spoiler tag?

    by barryap

    Shit, I didn't know about this global warning thing before.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Republican - urgh

    by DavidCamp

    You should be ashamed Mr.Massawyrm. Ashamed. I expect an apology immediately followed by a swift conversion to morality.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST

    too close to 9-11

    by Mel Garga

    I'll wait for the sequel - Inconvenient Truth II: Havana Nights

  • May 30, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Give up Al, the fight is lost, always has been

    by Rupee88

    People are selfish and do what is best for themselves. If someone can make $5 from having everyone burn up 100 years later, they will do it. Corporations and nations have no self-interest in preserving the planet for the future. Game over...glad I'll be ashes when the shit hits the fan.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Bravo Wyrm!

    by mattw

    I applaud your review. I hope republicans don't avoid this because they see Al Gore and think "He's a democrat. I think I'm not supposed to like this or want to see it." This is not a political issue folks (although I'm sure this talkback will devolve into a left vs. right screaming match).

  • May 30, 2006, 1:15 p.m. CST

    R.I.P. Paul Gleason......

    by Mel Garga

  • May 30, 2006, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Well said

    by Fernwick_

    Good review. Honest, well spoken, seriously good stuff. I will definetely see it now. Thanks! Hamferno

  • May 30, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST


    by Cory849

    Global Warming Debate Part Deux!!! Let the games begin!

  • May 30, 2006, 1:22 p.m. CST

    art will do little to save our planet

    by blackstormy

    the billionairs that run the world don't give a shit about the planet because when our world becomes inhabitable they will be living in space. Films will do little to stop our (when I say our I mean the 99.999% who don't have the luxary of billions of dollars) head first dive into destruction. What needs to happen is for people to wake-up and recognize that if we have any respect for our planet we need to totaly reorganize the structure of society, I'm talking about a revolution. But don't look at me, i'm much too lazy, i'll go check out x3 instead.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:25 p.m. CST

    OMFG! Massawyrm is a Republican!

    by ScarranHalfBreed

    I can never trust his reviews again! Not that I did before. Wasn't Al Gore supposed to write an episode of Futurama, or did I dream it?

  • May 30, 2006, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Is there a climactic battle with Manbearpig?

    by J-Ro


  • May 30, 2006, 1:34 p.m. CST

    It's not that Gore has changed

    by chrth

    It's that the aliens finally returned him to the country after "Gore" lost the 2000 election. Gore and Tipper got lost hiking in the woods during 1992 holidays, and we didn't see Gore do anything until NAFTA a year and a half later.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:39 p.m. CST

    I won't bother to precede my argument.....

    by Mel Garga noting my political affiliation, though I still consider Gore a firstrate fucktard. That being said, I agree with him. Those who deny that millions of cars emitting that much CO2 isn't having at least some negative effects are those who, fifty years ago, denied that inhaling smoke into your lungs was bad. If you don't care just in spite of Gore then you should care just to see the look on some arab's face when we say that we no longer need his product.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:44 p.m. CST

    WOW! "GreatOne2" ...

    by Halski

    If only the vast majority of scientists who find the Global Warning debate "over, dead, kapoot" would read AICN message boards and soak up your genius. We could have ended this debate years ago! Cereally. Strategery. And every other stupid pop culture reference you can think of ... So, what's your theory on the Flash out-running Superman?

  • May 30, 2006, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Solar flares

    by rock-me Amodeo

    Does anyone remember the warnings of increased solar flares that would disrupt communications through hightened EMI from roughly 1994 to 2005? I often wonder if more heat from the sun could translate, somehow, someway, to hotter temperatures? I know, that's just crazytalk...

  • May 30, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST

    skip to paragraph 9. that's where the review starts.

    by HypeEndsHere

  • May 30, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST

    How can anyone be a Republican these days?

    by Pdorwick

    ...I mean, aren't you the least bit ashamed and/or embarassed?

  • May 30, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Many politicians are oddly likable...

    by veritasses

    when they're not donning their political garb. Gore warmed up to me when I saw him on the talk show circuit (not political talk shows but stuff like Leno) as have Dole, McCain and Carter. They're much more relaxed and seem like good old regular Joe's that you actually wouldn't mind spending some time with. It's too bad politicians have to put on their partisan rhetoric spewing game faces that make them so despicable. And the crackhead zealots like Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter on the right and Garafolo and Franken on the left should be dumped in prison for serving no purpose then to throw gasoline on the fire for no one's benefit and widening the rift in the American political system thereby making progress even more of an uphill battle then it's ever been (though I find the ones on the left ever so slightly less offensive). I'm not sure if I hate them or the cast of "The View" more.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:56 p.m. CST

    GreatOne2 is so right, it's ridiculous.

    by OurManInMontr

    People -well, "greenies"- always get so worked up over nothing. Don't believe the global warming hype. In fact, do like I do and drive your H2 to the corner store.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:56 p.m. CST


    by Petro45

    Way to copy and paste an excerpt from a National Review article and post it without attribution. Plagiarize much? I guess by not posting the source you'd make people think that you were posting scientific facts, not spin from an unabashedly right-wing, non-science magazine.

  • May 30, 2006, 1:58 p.m. CST


    by rock-me Amodeo

    Even if one contests Bush's election, the fact that we have a Republican controlled House and Senate means that around 50% of the country either IS or VOTES republican. Why would you expect someone to be embarrassed? You apparantly have no idea that freedom means being able to vote your conscience - aren't you the least bit ashamed or embarrasssed? As a former soldier, I would have died for your right to be ignorant of those freedoms, but I would not have told you that you were wrong to think the way you think (like I am now).

  • May 30, 2006, 2 p.m. CST

    Why isn't this available for download?

    by Big Bad Clone

    Gore has been talking about higher-tech stuff with his new channel and all that shit. If this movie should be seen by the most amounyt of people, why not have it somewhere online? Heck, put it on iTunes or something. I want to see it but I don't necessarily want to leave my house to see it. Besides, it'd be a waste to drive to go see it.

  • May 30, 2006, 2 p.m. CST

    Amen Massa

    by quadrupletree

    If we had more Republicans like you the world would be a better place!

  • May 30, 2006, 2:05 p.m. CST

    It was that beard that changed him.

    by Big Bad Clone

    Recall, if you will, when he grew that full beard following his "loss" to Bush? Going Grizzley Adams changed his public demeanor. Hell, he played Willy Wonka's straight laced brother on SNL for (Amanda) Peet's sake!

  • May 30, 2006, 2:06 p.m. CST


    by Petro45

    Also, the National Review article that you plagiarize has been shown to completely misstate and mischaracterize the studies cited therein. For example, one of the scientists whose study is cited has said that his study SUPPORTS global warning, rather than disputing it. Here's a quote: "Curt Davis, a scientist whose work is cited both by the institute and by National Review, has already protested. ''These television ads,'' he declared in a press release, ''are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate.'' He points out that an initial increase in the thickness of Antarctica's interior ice sheets is a predicted consequence of a warming planet, so that his results actually support global warming rather than refuting it." Unlike you, I will provide attribution. This is from an op-ed in the NYTimes. I couldn't post a link since its subscriber-only.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:08 p.m. CST

    You are forgetting something very important, GREATONE2.

    by Bazka Berzerker

    Why is that when we are talking about a GLOBAL phenomenom, some people like to refute it by giving LOCAL arguments? Or when we are talking about the world warming up since the beginning of the industrial age, some people try to refute the warming by saying that "Yeah, but the world got colder on the year XXXX!". You see, there are also periodical cycles which are not affected by man. And also, when the WORLD gets warmer, it doesn't mean that EVERY PLACE gets warmer. For example as a result of the greenhouse effect my native country Finland, along with the rest of northern Europe will most likely get COLDER. Do you know why so? You should. The problem with global warming isn't that the world and mankind would be destroyed. The problem is that changes in climate cause changes in agriculture, changes in the accesibility of food and water, changes in living conditions. These changes mean major adjustments in infrastructures of nations. And that costs a HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY. But if we try keep these changes in check, we can actually spend A LOT LESS MONEY. Most people understand the value of money, and prefer not to waste it. To put it simple: If you fix your house in time it will cost a lot less money than if you wait it to fall down and only after that start fixing. It's common sense. And everyone, whether they are democrat or a republican, should be interested in not wasting money.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:11 p.m. CST

    More on GreatOne's distortion of science

    by Petro45

    Here is another quote from the author of one of the studies you (or more accurately, National Review) cites. It's pretty clear that National Review completely distorted his work in a tranparent, politically-motivated hack job. ""The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner," the ad cheerily declares, while an image of a study from Science flashes across the screen. Just one problem with the claim: It's completely misleading. The study's author, Curt Davis of the University of Missouri, was so horrified that he released a statement. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," he said. "They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims." Global warming is melting sea ice and the coastal areas of Antarctica at an alarming rate, which in turn has increased precipitation, thus thickening the ice in the interior. In other words, the melting coasts are making it snow more in the middle. But this is a bug, not a feature. Overall, the ice sheet is losing mass, not gaining it. As Davis said in response to the CEI ads, "The fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming.""

  • May 30, 2006, 2:16 p.m. CST

    Inconvenient Truth = good. Republican "views" = huh?

    by battery

    Good review, Massa. We who love Clinton appreciate your not sticking to the GOP party line. Note, my sole sense of satisfaction that Gore lost in 2000 was the fact that Tipper wasn't in the White House. Long live Slayer. Just one thing: your party's preference for shock and awe tactics/propaganda mean any person who voted for Bush (and therefore approved of Karl Rove) can never open their mouth about any unsubtle pandering by anyone else - ever. And are you really shocked by an over the top Hollywood marketing campaign? Also, your use of the word "propaganda" to define this film even amid your other glowing remarks do a disservice to the film. It's like you're qualifying yourself, afraid to commit to your stand on how effective the movie's message is. There's not a person with any sense who believes we haven't done harm to the environment. It's not a matter of "if," so it's not propaganda. We're fucking up in so many ways, it's just a matter of how. Gore's pointing out his "how." His point is - if scientists were Rotten Tomatoes and global warming was a film, it would be 100% fresh. So - thanks for your candor. (though I'd love to know how someone defines a "traditional Republican" and includes a respect for the environment.)

  • May 30, 2006, 2:27 p.m. CST

    I blame the Democratic handlers.

    by OBSD

    I seriously think that whoever is the one who is in charge of "handling" the Democratic canidates should be shot. "John, don't worry about the swift boat thing, it'll blow over." Shit, all Kerry had to do was repeat "Where's Osama, asshole?" over and over and he would have won. But somebody thought that was a bad idea. And now they're working for the RNC. And as for Gore, somebody decided that he would look better if he was wooden and without passion. But Gore did try. He commissioned Spike Jonze to make a mini documentary of whim in 2000. I swear, if they used this in the campaign, hw would have won. But his "handlers" thought it was a bad idea to show Gore as a human being. Assholes. Watch them (it's broken up in 2 parts) and see for yourself: and #2:

  • May 30, 2006, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Hey Massawyrm

    by CaptDanielRoe

    How can you still claim allegiance to that party when you have your stated set of ideals? That party is over dude. And with a little help from our friends on the "far right" where you are (libertarian inclinations)... We can also end the OTHER party of P.C., P.T.A., pursed-lip culture-baiting. The true center is at the supposed extremes. The "center" as currently defined is just a bunch of media manipulators who can't make up their minds anymore than their "swing voter" constituency. And I'm talking about McCain, Huckabee, and Specter just as much as Hillary, Lieberman, and the Old Gore. ... There's nothing goin on in the Grand Old Party, pal. But the Democratic Party is still ripe for the picking. With just a few percent of the right people from your side we could really change it and we could win bigtime.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST


    by Petro45

    Why does this thread have to devolve into a republican versus democrat debate? The issue should be global warming, not which political party we prefer. This is the problem. Rather than taking a rationale approach to the global warming issue (or most other political issues, for that matter), people in this country fall back on the "republican v. democrat" paradigm. Hmm, scientific evidence supports the democrats position on a certain issue? Well, we better assail the science, rather than reassess our own positions! After all, its easier to say "I side with one political party" than to do an honest assessment of complicated issues.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Questions for Al Gore

    by Spangler

    Questions for Al Gore By Dr. Roy Spencer on 25 May 2006 You can view it at

  • May 30, 2006, 2:31 p.m. CST

    TOO SOON!!!

    by TheBaxter

    there are still glaciers, there's still ice in antarctica, and only 15% or so of the ozone layer is gone. why should we worry about global warming yet? let our granchildren worry about it when they're living in underground caves. i'm too busy watching X3.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:32 p.m. CST


    by Petro45

    GreatOne writes: "Of course, it doesn't matter that a conservative was quoting Science and Nature, since it was a conservative doing the quoting, must be wrong." Umm, read my earlier posts, jackass. The author of one of those studies has gone public stating that the global-warming skeptics have completely distorted his study, which SUPPORTS global warming. So when National Review cites Nature, and the author of the Nature study publicly states that the conclusions reached by National Review are full of shit, then you're right -- it doesn't matter that National Review was citing Nature. An erroneous and misleading citation is worthless.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Gore needs to

    by Kentucky Colonel

    Dump Tipper, renounce the PMRC, bag a hollywood starlette and let me date his daughters. Then I'd vote for him. Can't wait to see this!

  • May 30, 2006, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Petro, you're doing it too

    by bigdickmcgee

    From the BBC: "The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been melting naturally and releasing water to the ocean for the last 10,000 years. Research published in the journal Science suggests that the last Ice Age never really ended in that part of the world. If the melting continues at its current rate then the WAIS could disappear in 7,000 years, possibly raising worldwide sea levels by five metres. However, scientists warn that a sudden rapid melting of the WAIS could cause serious problems for some coastal regions." Even if Antarctica is losing mass, it is hardly a vindication of your view of "science". A quick scan of net data shows that even global warmists say that "melting" antarctica will add 0.6 mm to sea level a year. Sea level has been rising by 1-2 mm a year for the past 20,000 years. Means it takes 5-10 years for sea level to rise 1 centimeter, 150-300 years for sea level to rise 1 foot, and 3000-6000 years for Gore's "catastrophic" 20 foot rise. As far as "warming" causing it to snow in the interior, nice try. But up until 2002, the sheet was gaining in both mass and thickness - not just in the "middle" but the entire interior. By the way, if melting increases precipitation, which causes it to snow in the interior and thicken the ice sheet, where does the sea level rise come from? According to your theory, that stuff just gets recycled to the interior. And how can ice thicken if it's "warming". Have you ever seen ice thicken when it gets warmer? This is the problem with the global warming theory - it's a tautology. Anything that happens it global warming. If the ice is melting, it's global warming. If it's thickening, it's from precipitation caused by global warming. If sea level is rising then it's global warming. But rapid warming causes evaporation. Like in a desert, where lakes and rivers dry up. Shouldn't sea level be receding then? Aren't those penguins shown marching through a desert? A tautology can be used to explain anything. It's circular. You could just as easily make the case that we have global COOLING. The thickening of the antarctic ice sheet is causing warm air to be pushed out to the edges, where it is melting the ice and evaporating the moisture. But because of global cooling, the evaporation turns to snow and thickens the antarctic ice shelf. See how easy it is? It's all VERY far from being cut and dry, and the scientific debate is anything but settled.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Kentucky Colonel

    by CaptDanielRoe

    You have just described George Clooney. As to Clooney letting you at his daughters, he probably doesn't know which ones are his so technically he's done that already. He was asked whether he'd ever run and he said if he did, it would have to be on the "I did it" platform. Did you take such and such a drug? "Yes I did." Did you have sexual relations with those women? "Yes I did."

  • May 30, 2006, 2:43 p.m. CST

    thank you, pedro45, for saving us from greatone

    by durhay

    Make sure you check the other talkbacks too. He might post about Spider-man's black costume!!!!!!!!!

  • May 30, 2006, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Why not get rid of petro?

    by aceattorney

    We've got the technology to run cars on other fuel...but alas, technology gets filtered through the government.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:45 p.m. CST


    by aceattorney

    Non-fossil fuel technologies, that is...

  • May 30, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST


    by Petro45

    I'm not sure what you accuse me of "doing." Half of your post is refuting things that I never said -- I don't recall saying anything about rising sea-levels. All I did was point out that GreatOne posted a National Review story, and that the scientist whose study was cited therein has expressly said that the National Review completely and grossly misstated the results of his study. To me, that completely undermines the credibility of the National Review article. There may be more valid scientific studies questioning global warming out there -- I was just refuting the one cited (or to be more accurate, posted without citation) by GreatOne.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Out of 938 scientific studies on global warming...

    by Slim_Goodbody

    ...taken from 1993 to 2003, every single one agreed that the earth is warming dramatically, due to human activity. You can't argue that global warming is happening. What are we going to do about it? Ignore it?

  • May 30, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    You should check out another film called "Who Killed The Electric Car." Just google it, it's around now (as much as documentaries ever are).

  • May 30, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Bush people = shit people

    by battery

    so funny that people are dumb enough to defend this idiot president.

  • May 30, 2006, 2:58 p.m. CST

    GreatOne, you're in denial

    by Petro45

    You, plagiarizing National Review, cited a study in Science for the proposition that global warming is not really happening. I cited the AUTHOR OF THE STUDY, who has said that global warming skeptics have completely misstated his study, and that his study supported existing theories about global warming. Rather than admit you're wrong, now you're accusing the author of the study of lying about what his study showed in an effort to stay in good with the left wing cabal. And people say that its the lefties who believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories. When a prominent scientist says that his work was miscited, I tend to believe the scientist, rather than the partisan magazine that did the mis-citing. Most rationale people would do the same.

  • May 30, 2006, 3 p.m. CST

    The Headline lied. This review was neither...

    by Borgnine JR

    ...incredible nor incendiary.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:01 p.m. CST

    A rabid liberal, I saw the film yesterday...

    by cookylamoo

    And I think it's a 90 minute commerical to get Al Gore back into the race. It's got that same weapy sentamentalism that you find in campaign spots. His son gets hit by a car, his mother dies from smoking his father's tobacco, the little stream behind his parents farm dried up, he lost the election. Boo Hoo Hoo. Vote for me. I'm not dead yet. Vote for me. Anyway, I'm sure all the environmental stuff is true. Your kids are going to cook in the next forty years. Better start eyeing all that new exposed land in Canada and Antarctica, pardners. You see the figure he throws out that's really scary is nine billion people on the planet in the next fifty years, and then guess doubles again as those nine billion have kids. That's why humanity is REALLY fucked.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:05 p.m. CST


    by brycemonkey

    yeah, he has been poping up in all sorts of strange places looking (or trying to look like) a leader... Stop drowning Polar Bears! Assholes.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:06 p.m. CST

    I hope Greatone is right.

    by inkymae

    Because if he is wrong, and global warming is as serious a situation as the Gore movie proclaims. This whole planet and everyone on it is seriously screwed. BTW, I think Greatone is wrong.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Heh - Borgnine Jr is right

    by Massawyrm 1

    I sent that in as the header of my e-mail - throwing a bit of sarcasm at the editor. It was followed by a short statement "Flamebait, thy name is Wyrm." But...he took it seriously. I had to goggle when I saw it on the main page, knowing that someone was gonna ream me for that tagline. Better sooner than later. ;)

  • May 30, 2006, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Conservative/Liberal Division

    by chains

    The terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" are time-honored labels that have unfortunately lost most of their meaning today. The Corporate media portray a Conservative as an Ebenezer Scrooge before his Christmas Eve ghostly visitors, consigning the poor to the prisons and workhouses. Likewise, they show a Liberal as a Fagan, picking the pockets of the deserving wealthy, corrupting the morals of our youth, and exhibiting not the slightest hint of conscience or self-control. Neither of these Dickensian caricatures is true. The corporate ruling class and their media have artificially divided the American people and turned us against each other because they don

  • May 30, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Tipper Gore cost her husband the election.

    by Harry Weinstein

    I could have never at the time voted for Gore, because giving his wife First Lady levels of power was out of the question. If I had known then that what we got instead would be a thousand times worse than Tipper's most lucid wet dreams of government censorship of the arts, well that would have changed my mind. But at the time, it was a choice between Tipper's Husband and Bush's Idiot Son. Neither was an option I could even consider voting for. Nader? Well, I was ignorant about him, honestly. First and last election I ever sat out since I was old enough to vote, and I couldn't regret it more. It will not happen again. Al, you're my boy. I'm glad you found the fire inside, the passion you didn't display when it really counted. Better late than never, but make no mistake, it's LATE. But every night, when you go to bed, take a good, long look at the reason you "lost" in 2000, because she's right there under the covers with you. Without her antics, people like me, who take freedom seriously, would have voted for you. But you screwed the pooch, and by pooch, I mean bitch, and by bitch, I mean your wife. I don't want to diss a man's wife lightly, but good Lord, she earned it and then some.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:20 p.m. CST

    rock-me Amodeo

    by Darth Hater

    No seriously you should be ashamed and embarressed 50% just proves to me that half of these united states likes it anally (not that there's anything wrong with that) As for you being a soldier once, no joke here... thanks!!!!!

  • May 30, 2006, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Yeah whatever...

    by Thunderpants

    Is this site ever going to acknowledge that Paul Gleason died?

  • May 30, 2006, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Forget the presidency; any fool can be president...

    by Roguewriter

    Al Gore will win a Nobel Prize for this film and become a key government advisor on the global warming issue for years to come. Hopefully he can knock some sense into BOTH sides of the debate...

  • May 30, 2006, 3:29 p.m. CST

    A conservative on AICN?

    by KCMOSHer

    Good to know. AICN has always had a problem skewing so far to the left you guys sometimes sound like a mouthpiece for or ANSWER. That said, I'd be much more inclined to agree with Massa on this one if the entire concept of global warming (as opposed to natural climate change) wasn't based entirely on junk science...just like the hole in the ozone that apparently doesn't exist now, and a hundred other 'oh shit we need to keep our grant money coming SOMEONE COME UP WITH A NEW DOOMSDAY SCENARIO we have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen!' Harumph harumph!

  • May 30, 2006, 3:32 p.m. CST


    by Darth Hater

    Hey buddy why don't you smoke a couple of cartons of cigarettes... there good for you!

  • May 30, 2006, 3:32 p.m. CST

    The problem with Global Warming

    by BLWiseass

    Is that everone has an agenda. The "evil" corporations don't want to do anything that will cost them money, so they enlist the help of propoganda machines to make everyone think its kook greenie leftist communist science. The scientists "studying" global warming need to find "proof" of its existence to justify their jobs as "global warming experts" and keep the grant money pouring in. All i know is this planet has been getting warmer and cooler far before any internal combustion engines were created, and the kyoto treaty that was such a hot topic did not bother to include some of the worlds biggest CO2 producers. Is global warming happening at an increased rate? Fuck if i know, and fuck if i believe anything i read because as stated above, everyone has an agenda. I'm just glad that season 3 of rescue me starts tonight.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Don't fall for Gore's BS

    by Vynson

    We've been keeping accurate meteorological records for a brief fraction of our history and only in certain areas. We have no idea what sort of larger cycles the Earth goes through. Yet Al Gore, who ranted about the impending ice age back in the 70s, is now ranting about global warming. Hell, I live in Cleveland; bring it on. ScareMongering at its finest. The facts tell us that if we are having an effect on global warming, it is minute. New studies show that plants produce methane. Forests are just as bad for the Earth as we are. And then Al Gore brings out the photos of Kilimanjaro. Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 YEARS, largely due to atmospheric moisture, NOT global warming.. Where are Penn and Teller on this issue because Global Warming is BULLSHIT!

  • May 30, 2006, 3:43 p.m. CST


    by Darth Hater

    Ahh denile, mmmm a nice place to live and you don't have to worry about doing anything. It's obvious that we humans are un-obtrusive. Why atleast once a day I'll wrap my mouth around my exhaust pipe for a hardy inhale, that burn I feel means it's workin' I FEEL GREAT!

  • May 30, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    You wrote: "We have no idea what sort of larger cycles the Earth goes through." And you wrote that in ignorance of the detailed geological data on that subject. Just because it's over your head doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:47 p.m. CST we go again...

    by biggles2_22

    OK all you mad libs (that includes you Massawrym), riddle-me-this... If we (humankind) can coordinate our efforts and effectively cool our planet, what temperature would you like? Personally, a 95-degree Memorial Day in Michigan was just fine for me! Also, once we (humankind), will our way to cooler temps (we're just THAT powerful), could we stop it? I'll say it again, this is all about money and completely made up by socialists who are trying to level the playing field with US and the rest of the third world. I've lived through the hottest summer on record and the coldest winter on record and guess what, Jack, they were in the same fricken year! Al Gore makes a movie and all of the sudden a cross-pogo-stick-jumpin hippie comes out of the closet as a Republican?! Please. Al's movie will be great propagandan pap for the libs that author this site as well as the democratic base. It may even be anti-American enough to win a Nobel. But in 40 years we'll be looking back at the 2000's and laughing at the fact that some of the boobs actually bought into it. HAHAHAHAHAHA

  • May 30, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    BLWiseass: That's A Forced Equivalence

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Your imagined equivalency between the polluting biz and science is extremely out of whack. Do you really imagine there are legions of scientists riding around in limos with starlets on the cushy "global warming expert" circuit? ... Sometimes scientists are in fact paid enough money to put a couple of kids through good schools, or even afford a retirement home. But there is a lot more grant money (from corporations) in agreeing with corporations, and for that matter in agreeing with the Republicans who control all branches of government and therefore the pursestrings.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    KCMosher says global warming is "junk science"

    by Petro45

    Aah, I feel so much better now. A random AICN poster has told me, without citations, that "the entire concept of global warming [is] based entirely on junk science." I was concerned when Slim_Goodbody posted a link to Science Magazine showing that there are 938 peer-reviewed studies supporting the existence of global warming, but now that I know they're all "junk science" I feel so much better.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:55 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    The Nobel prize is rightwing-leaning. Remember they gave Ronald Reagan and Henry Kissinger Nobel Peace Prizes. Kissinger supposedly can't leave this country because he could be arrested as a war criminal, and he got a Nobel Peace Prize. ...So stop spinning fantasies about liberals running anything. Liberals run nothing. Not news, not government, not even the UN, the UK, France, or... Well okay we do run Italy and Spain, and Scandinavia... And Hollywood by a slight lead.

  • May 30, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST


    by Darth Hater

    You see polotics don't need to enter into this particular TB. It's time for a little ed-ju-ma-ca-tion, let's forgat global for a second because as evident from above posts any jamocha head can make any argument back and forth back and forth backforthbackforthbackforth Aaarrrggghhh! So not global but local let's say a fresh clear glass of water mmm now add a couple cigarette butts, maybe a few drops of motor oil do we still want to drink it probably wont kill ya but it can't be good, right? No SHIT that natural cycles through out planet history have occured and effected weather enviroment and that even a planet with out humans will naturally age and burn it's self out BUT DO WE NEED TO HELP IT ALONG TO EXTINCTION YA DUMB FUCKS!!! ahem, Just kidding everythings cool there's no bad in the world. Really things are great! Go about yer day.

  • May 30, 2006, 4 p.m. CST


    by Darth Hater

    ok my spelling sucks (above) forgive. you get it.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:02 p.m. CST

    We're all doomed

    by chrth

    Probably can't even settle in space anymore, according to Discover magazine. Even with alternative fuels we're still on the path to extinction (or, at least, significant regression). Internet is about to crash under the weight of youtube. On the plus side, there'll be plenty of fat people to eat when society collapses.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST

    The same morons who say computer models are bogus

    by zekmoe

    are the ones who quote the bible like it's some sort of fact, instead of a moralistic teaching. Get a grip, and stop thinking that it's ok to contradict anything under the blanket of belief.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Vynson, i second that, and would further add...

    by Blacket-Man

    It is funny that Leo DiCaprio is fully qualified to speak to the issue of global warming and Micheal Crichton is not, simply because he has a disenting opinion.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST


    by Darth Hater

    my doctor told me to stay away from fats Aaarrgghh!!!

  • May 30, 2006, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Capt. Dan

    by biggles2_22

    Sorry, I should have clarified the Nobel "Peace" Prize and don't rattle off winners from 30+ years ago, tricksy hobbit. Click on over to for great examples of liberali at it's best! You may be able to cut & past your way to a global warming argument. Since the science has gotten so junked-up from both the right and the left (moreso from the left), I'll prefer to lean back on observation and Logic. Sorry for using the (L) word with a l-l-liberal.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:12 p.m. CST


    by Darth Hater

    Ah a 29%er. I applaud the whole stickin' to yer guns. And if yer gonna rely on observation you'll need to take yer head out of the Prezes ass and look around. OHH snap!

  • May 30, 2006, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Shit people, even the Pentagon recognises that..

    by Cameron1

    climate change as the foremost threat to global security. "It should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern" authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. Now I know theres a argument used about how back in the 70's claims were made that were proved to be false, but that really doesn't mean anything about reports today. It's like saying that because Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

  • May 30, 2006, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Oh shit, chrth's leadin an "eat the chubby" campaign!

    by Roguewriter

    ZOMBIE SQUAD-UP! ;) Seriously, global warming ain't a myth, and it ain't junk science. No, we're not entirely to blame -- not even primarily to blame (at least, that's what some of the scientists I work with tell me). But the crux of the problem is this -- the planet itself is going through some serious upheavals tied to cyclical changes millennia older than humanity itself, and we're all just gonna have to hang on and ride it out... or eat the fat. I for one, pushing 300 pounds as I do (thank god I'm tall) will be watching over my shoulder for you, chrth!! At the end of the day, all of us, and the planet itself, are on a clock. I'm not espousing a plan of free abuse (or free love, you naughty bastidges) but for crissakes, if you add the eventual destruction of the planet to the boatload of shit most people are fretting about every minute of every damn day, there's folks out here who are gonna SNAP. Yes, we can be environmental-minded. Yes, we can seek out alternative fuels. But at some point, the warranty's up and the wheels fall off. Who are we to imagine we're capable of wreaking global-scale havoc on this immense world of ours, pitiful pipsqueak a-hole rotters that we are???????? I'm still rooting for Al Gore to get that Nobel Prize. He's finally a real boy! Go, Al!!

  • May 30, 2006, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Woah, woah, woah Tom...

    by Massawyrm 1

    You know, you've been insulting to me before. But Fox watcher? Dude, that's low. O'Reilly has about 2.5 million viewers. Yet there are at least 20x that number of Republicans that don't watch him. Republican I may be - but I'm not a part of any of the political propaganda machines. And to the guy that called me a hippy liberal...well, when your ass has gone that far right, I'm sure real conservatives are far enough away that we look like liberals. Of course, you're probvably so far over there that we look like specks. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Darth Hater

    by biggles2_22

    Not a big fan of the prez, but I do resent "Snapping" on something totally off subject. BTW, the year 2003 called and they want their "Snap!" back.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Elect Me or Manbearpig will Kill Us All!

    by MarkWhittington

    Of course one of Algore's problems is that he wants the rest of us to give up all of those technological comforts that he wishes to continue to enjoy. The other problem is that, contrary to this review, Algore's polemic on global warming is the ravings of a madman.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Well shit greatone2, who do we trust?

    by Cameron1

    National Review Online? I'm not saying cus the CIA or pentagon said so it must be true, but at some point, when there's lots of people trying to tell you something you really should listen with an openmind.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST


    by Darth Hater


  • May 30, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST

    The Cooling World

    by Pdid And this is my personal problem with global warming alarmists. If scientists were convinced that we were entering a cooling phase in the 70's, why do they get the beefit of the doubt when they predict a man-made warming phase? Also, don't discount what BLWiseass said in another post/ Global warming scientists basically have to find evidence of global warming to justify their research and get grant money

  • May 30, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Hey Mark Whittington

    by Massawyrm 1

    Did you see the film? If you did, I'd love to see you post a solid counter argument. Or are you just basing this on opinion from press releases you've gathered?

  • May 30, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST

    "You can easily tell that he

    by Childe Roland

    ...someone who while on the track to the White House gave us what he thought we wanted, and now, with nothing to lose, can let it all hang out and just be himself." This is EXACTLY what I thought when I met Dole two years ago. The guy was funny, quick and relaxed. He looked younger and happier than he ever did on the campaign trail. If he'd given a similar speech during his presidential bid to the one he gave at this function (on the importance of humor and an appreciation of the absurd in governing people), I would've voted for him. He and Gore were both criminally mishandled. When I met Gore during the 1996 DNC in Chicago, he was a charming, smart and witty guy (the last two traits being entirely different things). I had a hard time explaining all that to my gal in 2000 (a Republican because that was what her daddy taught her), who was just shocked as hell that I'd consider voting Democrat. What she and a lot of other people don't get about politicians is that the real measure of a man transcends his politics. I've heard some insightful, intelligent thoughts from both sides of the political divide over the years (and some ridiculously stupid and empty shit, especially recently, as well). I like to think people are smart enough to recognize good ideas and acknowledge them regardless of where those ideas come from (like Massa seems to be doing in this article). But, sadly, that shit ain't the truth. People look for people they trust to tell them what they should believe because it's easier than doing the homework and making up their own minds. It's the kind of "thinking" that makes the stoned outrage of entire college campuses seem laughable ("All conservatives want to do is shove god down our throats, take away our drugs and tell us who we can fuck, man!") and the kind of "thinking" that got us four more years of Bush's bullshit. Whoever said above that flushing the system every 10 years is a good idea was on to something. Personally, I recommend a good flushing every four years. Change the structure of the system and you force those trying to use it to be more talk to each other more in their mutual attempts to figure it out. Personally, I'd rather have my lawmakers thinking outside the box and communicating with each other than rubber stamping whatever their in-power party tries to force down the line. It's called checks and balances, folks, and although the founding fathers had no idea what today's political parties would look like, they knew it was a great way for everyone to keep each other honest. They built it into the structure of the government, but it can work within each of the branches as well. If you vote a straight party ticket - for either side - you're part of the problem. Do your research. Find out what these blow-dried, moneyed motherfuckers stand for and call them as you see them. Then get ready to do your part in keeping them honest. And to the oblivious cockmonkey who thought 95 degrees was just fine and dandy for Michigan in May: you really ought to move farther south. MUCH farther south. You and all of your neighbors would be a lot happier.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Pdid - there's a faulty argument if I ever heard one

    by Massawyrm 1

    "Well, you see, since scientists once thought the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around us - why should we trust them now that they say it's round and we revolve around the Sun? That's just ridiculous." It's a Fallacy.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Look, there's only person you should be listening to

    by chrth

    Me. Seriously. Y'all are wasting your time otherwise. And I say: I don't know if there's Global Warming or not, or if there is, whether mankind is causing a problem. What I do know is that there's a layer of pollution in our atmosphere that wasn't there a century ago, something we can all see. And I have to think that it can't be beneficial in the short or the long term.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Nice Job, Massawyrm

    by Dave Bowman

    I have spoken.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Reality Has A Liberal Bias: The End of the NeoCon Era

    by ZombieSolutions

    who else around here can't wait for November! Yay! The Big Backash! The Big Comeuppance! The END of the NeoCon Era. Finally! we've all waited patiently, and its almost upon us! The triumphant return of true New Deal style populism! goodbye NeoCons! the jig is up, you've had your fun ruining the country; now the liberal bias of REALITY has come to collect the bill! run along now! its time to go back into the holes from wence you crept; you can sit in there and pray and listen to Pat Boone and read Mein Kampf all you want down there! say hi to ZombieReagan for us, okay! oh, and don't call us... we'll.. okay, we won't call you, but hey, we can still be friends. toodles!

  • May 30, 2006, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Uh, ZombieSolutions, before you get too excited

    by chrth

    Remember 1994. And 1996. Cause I'm pretty positive the Dems won't learn that lesson.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Yes, Massa!!

    by Cameron1

    And here's the rub. Because science has got things wrong in the past we shouldn't trust it ever again? Seems like people don't really understand what science is or does. But ah well. And if the climatologists were just doing all this to make an easy buck they could do a U-turn and go work for any number of corporations who have an interest in downplaying global warming and pay a hell of a lot better too. I mean why is it only the scientists who say global warming is real that are doing it for the money. Why isn't the ones denying it who are doing it for the money.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Who cares what I think?

    by Larry of Arabia

    I'll write it anyway. Hell it never stopped any other talkbackers. Suppose there is no global warning, despite what almost every scientist outside the oil industry says. Isn't it still good to cut our emissions? Isn't it les expensive, over the long run, to drive a car that gets 40mpg instead of a SUV that gets 14? (And yes, I am aware that some of us legitimately need SUV's.) Isn't it healthier for a majority of us to bike to the store when possible? Don't clothes dry wrikle free when blowing in the breeze? Many of these changes have benefits beyond curbing global warming.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland

    by biggles2_22

    Just curious... Which tastes better? Democrat cock or Republican pussy? Obviously, you've had both.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Hey, Cameron1, cool the rhetoric

    by chrth

    There are plenty of business leaders on the Global Warming bandwagon. Patagonia, Whole Foods, etc. This isn't tobacco where the companies are in danger of survival due to the issue. There are plenty of companies that take environmental issues seriously.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:39 p.m. CST


    by Cameron1

    no rhetoric here. Corporations was a catch all termed, applied badly. I know there's plenty of businesses concerned about the enviroment.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:42 p.m. CST

    To my experience, biggles...

    by Childe Roland

    ...all pussy tastes pretty much the same (although I've noticed that smokers tend to leave a slightly more acrid aftertaste). I'd ask Clinton if you want the definitive final word on pussy, though. According to more than one fine lady (no, not his wife) he eats pussy like a champ. As for Democrat cock, can't say I've had the pleasure. Most of the cocks I've met in recent years have been of the Neo Con variety, and since we've al had those particular cocks up our asses for the last six years, I'd say they all probbaly taste like shit by now. Nice attempt at being clever, by the way. Shouldn't you be studying for finals?

  • May 30, 2006, 4:45 p.m. CST

    To the TBer who said the hottest and coolest day...

    by SK909

    on record were in the same day - FUCKING EXACTLY, YOU MORON! That's like that famous cover of the NY Post that featured a photo of the tri-state area covered in a coupla feet of snow with the title: GLOBAL WARMING, HUH? To them and to you, totally uninformed retards, I say again - EX-ACTLY!!! The earth has things called positive and negative forces that attempt to balance one another out and when they're thrown far enough out of whack, whether the causes are natural or human, what you get are extremes on a particular scale, whether it be disease, environments, populations, or yes, WEATHER. If it is natural, we can't do anything about it. If it's us, we obviously can, but if we CAN do something and the answers have multiple bonuses, like less dependence on foreign oil cartels and megacorporations who do not have your or my interests in mind, then I say - PARTY! BONUS!

  • May 30, 2006, 4:45 p.m. CST

    darth Hater

    by rock-me Amodeo

    No problem, dude. Everyone gets to have an opinion. And I would have taken a bullet for you, too. But not, uhm... anally. Ouch! heh. Peace out.

  • May 30, 2006, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Too important a film to be discussed here ;)

    by Tsunami3G

    And I

  • May 30, 2006, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Two words - hydrogen power!

    by rock-me Amodeo

    And it can't get here fast enough. Should make the treehuggers happy with the environmently friendly emissions, and should make the neocons happy by ending our dependence on foreign oil. And of course, it should make the hypocrits on both sides that drive the big gas guzzlers excstat...exstat...really, really happy.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:02 p.m. CST

    That's Pretty Funny Amodeo

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Neocons are the ones cashing in on the importation of foreign oil. They want alternative fuel when Hell freezes over.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:05 p.m. CST


    by BLWiseass

    You mean scientists don't ride around in Limos? Hmpf... In all fairness, i never asserted that EQUAL shares of money were pouring into both sides of the agrument. I only asserted that money was indeed being poured into both sides of ther argument, and therefore it is in the interest of both sides to argue opposing viewpoints and to twist "facts" to support their viewpoint. I distrust what both sides are saying. I don't believe that we as human beings have zero impact on the environment but i also don't believe that the single biggest cause of temperature fluctuations is C02 emissions. This planet has seen periods of warming and cooling for a long time. Mars obviously had periods of warming and cooling because we have found evidence of long dead bodies of water on its surface. Did the martians get a little too SUV happy? Beats the shit out of me but my guess is no. Anyway, long story short, i don't trust anybody who parades around on either side of the issue. Now bring on the Rescue Me season premier.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:08 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    It just isn't so. Money for science comes from two places: Government and Big Business. Predominately Republican on both counts. There is no reward for speaking out on Global Warming. They get clubbed like baby seals for doing it. Just ask NASA. They made a brave stand on it against harsh Administration disapproval in an atmosphere where it has been made clear to them they have to play ball or risk their funding.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Bad News, Amodeo


    Any new source of energy that fuels capitalism will find opposition in the environmental movement. See, no matter how environmentally friendly it seems at the outset, it will turn out that there's something bad about it--the fuel itself, or the process used to get it, refine it, or ship it. And it will be attacked for that. Sure, DDT essentially ended malaria world-wide and saved millions, and could have save tens-of-millions of lives, but it could also give rats cancer if they were forced to bathe in it everyday. So . . . DDT is banned! Malaria makes a quick return and kids start dropping off like flies. But that's cool. Didn't you read "Silent Spring"? Come on . . . And, even if you get a free, pollution-free energy source, people will line up to attack it. And they will have studies to point at. They will have real world things to blame your hydrogen cars for. Bad stuff will always be happening--the world will always be getting hotter or colder, weather patterns will always be changing, there will always be natural disasters--and instead of the angry Gods, modern mystics and true believers will tell us we have offended Mother Earth, and, unless we want even WORSE natural disasters and hurricans and so forth, we have to given up our wicked ways and sacrifice our electricity and big cars and cross-country road trips on the alter of the Church of Environmental Purity. SPOILER: At the end of the movie, it turns out that Al Gore was not actually the second coming of Christ, but just a normal man who was, in fact, married to a record-banning she-witch. Didn't see that one coming.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:13 p.m. CST

    As To Cooling And Warming

    by CaptDanielRoe

    BLWiseass, you wrote: "...i also don't believe that the single biggest cause of temperature fluctuations is C02 emissions. This planet has seen periods of warming and cooling for a long time." ... To which I respond that if you look at the period of increased CO2 emissions exactly corresponding to the upward trend in temperatures, the odds of a coincidence there are astronomical. It would be one thing if the world were 3500 years old as the Republican Party seems to be comfortable advancing, but to have such a steep peak occur at precisely this moment of human consumption and population explosion in the big picture of tens of thousands and millions of years, is statistically absurb. Even without the very well-founded cause and effect.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:14 p.m. CST


    by Roook

    That's right--we must combat global warming and save the PLANTS.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:15 p.m. CST

    On the alternative fuel thing

    by chrth

    While I prefer alternative fuels for a host of reasons, even I recognize that if we all use corn oil for fuel it's going to cause a problem with water supply (you have to grow the corn!). Like many things in life, it's a complicated issue. It's like the Dungeon Master told Eric (after making him a Dungeon Master), giving yourself water to drink here may cause a drought somewhere else.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Remember that Simpsons Episode

    by cookylamoo

    Where they had a choice of voting for Kang or Kodos? Welcome to the next election.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:17 p.m. CST

    I believe you misunderstand what I'm saying

    by Pdid

    Scientists were right that the earth was cooling back in the 70's (or at least it had been cooling in the recent past). The problem I have, and I'm afraid that I didn't articulate well enough in my first post, is that scientists were using a short term trend to predict a long term trend and were proposing ideas to allow the world to cope with it. By the same token, global warming alarmists are using a relatively short term trend of warming to predict a catastrophic warming period caused by man. Which ignores the fact that we went through a similar warming phase earlier in the century ( Unfortunately there is no way to really test competing theories of global warming. Computer models have failed miserably. To put it another way, the CIA and almost all other world intelligence gathering bodies were in agreement that Iraq had WMD (even the French thought so). They turned out to be wrong. Just because a majority of scientists believe in man-made global warming doesn't make them right

  • May 30, 2006, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Big Money for Global Warming . . .


    Uh, there is a little money for the pro-global warming crowd. Big Hollywood for one. Big business predominantly Republican? Like British Petroleum, who have apparently bought the "reality" of global warming being man made hook, line and sinker? Or maybe one of the richest men in America, Warren Buffet? Oh, wait, he's a hug lib donor. Or maybe a super-wealthy media mogul, like Ted Turner. Oh, no, sorry, not him, either. He's also a giant liberal. Oh, I know, super-wealth currency trader George Soros! Oh, no, wait, he's also a gigantic liberal. Oh, and there's only hundreds of millions of dollars controlled by left-of-center to left-of-Stalin organizations that pay paychecks and give grants to folks working on the correct side of the global warming issue. And that doesn't even begin to touch the true believers, who attack dissenters and cynics among their ranks. It may be easy to dismiss the depth and breadth of data collected by Michael Crichton (although it's all actual data, and some of his sources--once they found out they were sources--actually redacted their online data to better make the case for global warming, so if you want to pretend the global warming true believers aren't playing fast and loose with the facts, you go ahead) but what about Bjorn Lomborg? He's a big lib. Loves green issues. Hates being cited (from what I've read; maybe it's all lies, most things seem to be, these days) by conservatives or anti-environmentalists, but he makes a pretty good case that the environment is generally healthy and getting better and much of the doomsaying is just plain wrong. And a lot of the global-warming-is-real folks attacked him from their environmental pulpits.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Coldest winter...

    by Big Bad Clone

    See the thing is, the Earth is a sphere. When we are titlted away from the sun in the nothern hemishpere, then the southern hemisphere is exposed to more heat. The global warming tread is concentrated in that sector sending cooler air from the melting south pole cap to us making us colder(like a bucket of melting ice in front of a fan). Damn people are fucking nearsighted and forgetful. And the extreme of really hot air and cold air will mean worse hurricanes as that is exactly what hurricanes are: the conflict taht occurs when hot and cold air meet.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:20 p.m. CST

    The solution is simple.....

    by cookylamoo

    Is to breed gigantic plants the size of skyscrapers that will suck up the carbon dioxide in the air and and return us sweet oxygen. The plants will also suck up all the water left over from melting glaciers thus saving New York and Florida.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:20 p.m. CST

    by CaptDanielRoe

    That's cracked. You believe in a caricature of "environmentalism" which has nothing to do with reality. Environmentalism is reasonable. Bill Ford, the chief maker of SUVs in the US, is a self-described environmentalist. Dollars come first to him but he has mixed feelings because he does understand the harm he is doing. That's a bad choice in my book but it shows that people who are environmentalists are realists. By definition. Of course there are some hippies but I wouldn't talk if I were you; your party includes the hillybillies of "Deliverance," if you want to get into moronic stereotypes. ... And by the way, Gore comes from oil money: Occidental Petroleum. He's not some sort of flake, or even a "purist." Just... Reasonable.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Just a Thought

    by Charles Martel

    Thought I'd post this, for those who want to look at how things work versus how things are presented: Now, let's talk about how this is wrong or right, not whether or not this is "funded by big business." I find this article far more investigative regarding how CO2 affects the atmosphere than anything Gore, or the other leftists, have said. It may be wrong, but I haven't seen anyone talk about it yet.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:23 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    There you go, you've solved the crisis. And we can all get around by swinging from the vines of those plants too. Plus we'll be in better shape, and tanned, assuming you can also invent a cow that farts ozone.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Of course, maybe the answer is to speed up global warm

    by chrth

    ing. There's a theory out there (accepted in a lot of places, too) that global warming actually leads to an ice age. The polar caps melt due to warming and when that happens they start to slide, increasing their surface area while thinning. Increased surface area of white reflects more sunlight into space and cools the atmosphere. This produces more snow instead of rain and the glaciers start to re-thicken. ... er I forget how the ice age ends then (?) ... anywho, that's not my point. Point is, if we can thin the glaciers faster than they spread, we can prevent the ice age. Or something. You know, just ignore this post.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Massawyrm's World is Flat


    There is a fallacy in your objection to citing (popular)science's near-uniform belief in global cooling and an incipient ice age in the 1970s. While it is true that saying that someone was once wrong about something does not prove they are wrong again (except in the case of Harry's reviews, this does seem to bear out), the argument about the flatness of the world was 500 years ago, while these folks--often the very same folks, selling books and making the talkshow circuit--were saying we were due for a new ice age just about 30 years ago. Now, would you be telling us we needed to accept, without analysis or skepticism, the pronouncements of people who were telling us the world was flat 30 years ago? The ice-age-is-coming folks had access to much of the same previous century of weather and temperature data that the global warming folks do now. In addition, in both cases, the conclusion has two important similarities: man is to blame, and the freedom of people to engage in commerce must in some way be restricted for the good of the planet. The odd similarities of both cases might make one at least suspect that there may be as much emotion and quasi-religious devotion involved as there is scientific fact. As a final point, we were told in the eighties that a so-called Dark Phoenix would run amok and destroy the entire planet and kill mankind. And did it happen? No, it did not. I rest my case.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Factual correction

    by chrth

    No normal scientist believed the Earth was flat 500 years ago. That's one of the stupid things they teach you in grade school. The main argument against Columbus was the distance, not the shape ... and it turns out that the Spanish Court Scientists were right and Columbus was wrong.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:34 p.m. CST

    Not A Personal Insult...

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Just a general one. No, just kidding, just a friendly observation akin to telling your friend know that his toupee is on the floor getting loved up by Sean Hannity's poodle. ............... One URL and one argument with big words, is not automatically as good as another. Either you have no idea how stupid you all sound with your "junk science" or you totally do, but (mistakenly) think its clever to just deny, deny, deny, on the lamest grounds imagineable. But it isn't. .......................... It's like those kids Bill Cosby complains about who won't learn in school because it's not "black" to do so. It's not Republican to learn, either, obviously.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:34 p.m. CST

    CaptDanielRoe can Read My Mind


    How do you know what I believe about environmentalism, other than I'm not on the global warming bandwagon? Although, assuming you're right, why should I trust Bill Ford, maker of devil-SUVs, when it comes to his opinions in regards to global warming? Unless our test for Bill Ford's correctness of belief is how neatly his opinion dovetails with yours. In regards to the Republicans being the party of hillbillies: what have you got against hillbillies, you elitist bigot? Not that you don't have a pretty mouth. Because you do. Have a very pretty mouth. Tell me: do you every squeal like a pig? Just a casual question. You know. Making conversation.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:37 p.m. CST

    "It's not Republican to learn, either, obviously"

    by chrth

    I'm not even a Republican and I find that insulting. If all you can do is come up with unjustified broad strokes, you obviously have no place in an intelligent debate (note: I am NOT claiming that this is an intelligent debate). So why should we take you seriously?

  • May 30, 2006, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Capt Dan and Darth Hater

    by Vynson

    Actually I was a certified weather observer in my youth and I know that two people can take a temp with two thermometers ten feet apart and get different results. Not widely different, but any discrepancy at all can lead one to assume too much. Too many variables and a thermometer isn't exactly an atomic clock even in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. The fact is that we don't have very accurate records about very much of the Earth for very long. You can play like I'm in denial or that I'm too dumb to get Al Gore's fearshow, but the facts simply don't support the assertions. I believe Al Gore won the election in 2000, but I don't believe he is correct about global warming. I'm not alone. "Looking at 10,000 years of climate history, there is nothing unusual about the warming of the 20th century," said Dr. Robert Balling professor in the climatology program at Arizona State other words, we're still coming out of an ice age and it's SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING WARMER! And driving a Prius isn't going to change that. I'm not saying we should just shit the place up as fast as we can. I am FOR a responsible stewardship of the Earth. I am for hydrogen cell technology. I am for discovering cleaner, more efficient, and cheaper sources of energy. I am for keeping our world as clean as we can. Hell, I'm a neat freak. I can't stand littering and find pollution disgusting. But the Global Warming scare is still bullshit.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:39 p.m. CST

    The Argument Against Progress Is:

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Even though science tells you that if you sit around the house eating corn chips, you will get fat and die unloved, why don't you just do that? The world isn't flat, after all. And some girls think fat is sexy. And winning the lottery is always a possibility. ......That's the argument against replacing the fossil fuel economy.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:41 p.m. CST


    by aceattorney

    with our policies towards newer technologies and our dependance on oil in general?

  • May 30, 2006, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Scientists said that the Earth revolved around the sun?

    by Craiggers

    Are you insane or just stupid? The Church insisted that the Earth revolved around the sun and it was widely accepted by all that the Earth was flat. It was SCIENTISTS that proved otherwise, even at the expense of their lives (such theories were heresies back then punishable by imprisonment, torture, or death). It's the religious establishment today that mainly disregards global warming because they believe that, A.) God will save them at the last moment, B.) if global warming IS true, this could be the road to the apocalypse they keep their fingers crossed for, or C.) most Christians, or the vocal ones in power, are right wing Republicans and if their grand messiah Bush says there's no global warming, there's no global warming. OKay, maybe I'm going a bit overboard, but at least one of those crazy statements have truth.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Aceattorney, of course they will

    by chrth

    Bill Clinton had us firmly on the path to environmentalism; hybrid car sales were strong and gas prices were taxed high to discourage consumption. And then of course Bush steals the election, drops the price of gas, and requires all Americans to buy an SUV.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Being A "Certified Weather Observer"

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Does not equate to having any clue. It does not qulaify you to argue against the fact that science, NASA, the UN, the Pentagon, etc., all know global warming is real and manmade. From what I can tell, a "Certified Weather Observer" has to have "sufficient knowledge" of "Federal Aviation Administration Order 7900.5b." Hardly a suitable credential. Yeah it looks dense to a pedestrian but does having been conversant in it, or similar, in ones' youth entitle one to deny reality? No. It's not much being being a boy scout in the grand scheme of things.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:46 p.m. CST

    CaptDanielRoe Can Replace the Fossil Fuel Economy


    Best of luck with that, Captain Dan. And when you develop super powers and win the lottery by eating corn chips and fat girls and whatever else you said, everybody will love you and the world will cool. But then the cooling won't stop, and we'll all die a horrible, freezing death. Which is apparently what you "book reading, always learning" type want to happen. So. Do you like banjo music? Because I sure do.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:47 p.m. CST

    This guy is NOT a Republican.

    by Winterchili

    Political party labels mean only what those in power decide they do. In the time of Lincoln, Republicans were todays Democrats and before Reagan EVERYONE was a Democrat by todays standards. Massamamy-whatever is not a Republican, he's a conservative and there is a HUGE difference.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Craiggers, you're way off base

    by chrth

    Most Christians are environmentalists, in my experience. And most aren't waiting for an apocalypse. And if most Christians were right wing republicans, a democrat would never win an election ever again, nor would've ever won in 1992 or 1996. ... Please, people on the global warming, stop with the stupidity. Stop making gross exaggerations and unfounded statements. For once we're on a side with strong science, we don't need to resort to hyperbole and baseless attacks to get our point across. If that's all you can do, PLEASE SHUT UP. Thank you.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:51 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    Yes. Look at what Gov. Schweitzer is trying to do in Montana with Fischer-Tropsch. .....And also check out the progress made in clean car tech in the Clinton years that has since been buried in the Bush years: .........(Bush's "hydrogen car" legislation by the way perverted the techniques available so that producing the hydrogen would still consume a lot of oil. And just like his trip to Mars and so many of his other 'episodes' you haven't heard about it since, have you?)

  • May 30, 2006, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Will Democrat Politicians Do Any Different?


    They will pretend to, and isn't that really the point, anyway? And they will laud themselves. Even all sorts of pro-environmental legislation was passed by Bush I and II. But not enough to stop the petroleum juggernaut, and no Democrat politician that actually wants a future in politics would do so, either. Although a Ralph Nader might, and make a might clusterfuck out of the economy at the same time. So that would be good. We've got more stringent environmental standards. More and more hybrid cars. The Segway. But things are "always getting worse". Sort of like the religious network that is always about to lose the satellite if they don't get more money from the true faithful. No matter what gets passed and no matter what improves, it's always the worst it's ever been, and unless we do something now the world will end!!! For your donation, please enclosed small, unmarked bills . . . BTW, anyone else here like banjo music? And pretty mouths? Because I do.

  • May 30, 2006, 5:57 p.m. CST

    So much for 'junk science'.

    by raw_bean

    Lets see anyone disagree with a single one of these very simple points: burning things combines carbon with oxygen to create CO2. CO2 can act as an insulator. We burn lots of things. Trees convert CO2 back into fixed carbon and oxygen. But a lot of what we burn or otherwise detroy are trees. We also burn lots of oil, coal and gas. Depend on them even. At some point, soon or late, there will be no more coal, oil, or gas. Impurities in the coal, oil or gas, or inefficient burning of them produce other smoky pollutions. These cause smog, acid rain, respiratory diseases like asthma. Apparently, the largest proportion of CO2 pollution is as a result of our daily living in our homes (not industry, surprisingly. I'd look for a citation, but it's late here in the UK) that are inefficiently lit and heated and our cars that are inefficiently fuelled. It has been suggested to us that for one reason or another, reducing the amount we pollute by more efficiently lighting and heating our homes, and fuelling our travel differently would be good for the planet. Making our lighting, heating, and travel fuel more efficient would also save us money. It would also reduce our dependency on limited resources (whether urgently limited or not so much so, there's clearly SOME limit) of oil, coal, and gas. Global warming or no (though being of a scientific bent I'm as confidant in it's existance as I am in evolution through natural selection), when you boil it down doesn't CO2 reduction make sense regardless?

  • May 30, 2006, 5:58 p.m. CST

    oooh, junkscience?

    by Cameron1

    it's an apt name although sadly not in the way Milloy believes.____ _____ _____ Now I realise you are just about to say "but you haven't argued with the science". Well a) it's psuedoscience anyway and b) Here's something no-one has successfully refuted ______ ______ and one more final note on Milloy, who's analysis you will find refuted by any number of people who aren't employed as lobbyists like Milloy is ____ ______

  • May 30, 2006, 6 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    Actually what Massawyrm is, is an "old liberal." Assuming, that is, that Massawyrm would never have had any of the historically conservative positions: Give smallpox to natives, hunt witches, oppose the Revolution actively, fight for slavery, fight for prohibition, fight against women's suffrage, fight to keep the US out of both world wars, fight for segregation, fight against AIDS reasearch...... Teddy Roosevelt: LIBERAL New York Democrat, even then; split off to form the "Bull Moose" Progressive Party. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Liberal. Not a socialist mind you all, there's a huge difference. Ike. Liberal Republican. ... "LIberal" in global terms is not left wing at all, but really means what "coservative" supposedly means to those who cling to the term yet oppose NeoConservatism. ......Of course it is not all black and white. But I don't want to hear any arguments that Southern coservative democrats who opposed WWII and desegregation aren't Republicans because, with the exception of Robert Byrd and Zel Miller, nearly every one of them became one.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:03 p.m. CST Dreamworld

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Pro-environmental legislation passed by Bush? Like the "Clear Skies" initiative? Which simply delists pollutants on the grounds that if you ignore it (if you are a conservative) it doesn't exist (until you die from it). For example, airborne mercury was delisted as a pollutant. That's not "Pro-environment." Also, his "healthy forests" initiative was really just carte blanche for logging companies to take any tree they want off public land.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Reducing C02


    Sounds great. I'm also for rainbows and lollipops. It's the mechanisms by which you accomplish the goal that tend to be at debate, and what the cost/benefit ratio is. For example, if we outlawed cars, we'd radically reduce C02. We'd also crush the economy and end up killing millions of people. So maybe that's too radical. Impose huge limitations on ourselves while giving the most polluting nations in the world a free pass? Hmmm. Maybe. Introduce hybrid cars to the market and tax breaks for companies that invest in more environmentally friendly energy sources? Now you're talking! Increase CAFE standards a little bit for cars and light trucks? Sounds good. Point fingers at the bad, bad people who hate clean air and water and want us all to die? Ooops, now you're losing me. Play a banjo on a porch in a swamp? Oh, dear! You had me at "banjo".

  • May 30, 2006, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Doesn't hurt to be prepared

    by bralli

    My understanding is that global warming is a reality, period. Whether or not it is actually caused by the activities of man, it the real debate. Regardless, if we are in for several decades of Katrina's and associated flooding, shouldn't we at least take the catastrophe's seriously and perhaps not appoint cronies to FEMA or pledge to continuously rebuild the same tracts of land that are bound to be flooded time and time again?

  • May 30, 2006, 6:09 p.m. CST

    It'd be really nice if Repubs and Dems...

    by Deep Cover

    ...didn't start with their preconceived notions and then cherry-pick facts to support their conclusions. I believe Penn & Teller call that "bullshit". That said, I'd like to invite anyone who doesn't think CO2

  • May 30, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Plus, the giant plants will give...

    by cookylamoo

    the nine billion people something to munch on...besides each other.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST


    by Deep Cover

    Oops, pressed the wrong button. As I was saying, I'd like to invite anyone who doesn't think C02 isn't toxic in large amounts to suck on a tailpipe. And the "greenies" really need to change the debate from "saving to Earth" to "keeping the Earth a habitable place". The Earth doesn't need saving - we do. The Earth will be here long after we're gone.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:14 p.m. CST

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Nobody is seriously talking about outlawing cars. Yes, I once met a man who wanted to close off I-95 to have it be a migratory path for wild bison: A former lumberjack by the way. He was really into eating beef because he wanted to kill off the cows fast to make way for the bison. But you know what? That's not reality. .......... Al Gore, formerly of the federal government and also associated with Occidental Petroleum, Apple Computer, and the Democratic Party, is not going to outlaw cars. Nobody is seriously talking about any nonsense like that. Stop arguing against pure fiction of your own, and Sean Hannity's, imagining. You aren't going to arrive at an informed result that way. ...... What we need to do is reinvest in rail transport. Electric. Nuclear plants for now as we develop fusion, solar, and other sources. .... Hydrogen cars or electric makes no difference to me; electric is probably superior as my best guess. I tdoesn't have to hurt the consumer or force everyone to take their beautiful old chevies and so on off the roads. Democrats are not, in fact, for "big government." Most of us have what you'd call a libertarian streak and that includes in the corporate arena; but the common good does need to be seen to.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    CaptDanielRoe: You're Cute!


    Clean Skies did a lot more than delist pollutants. But don't let that bother you, because Bush is a Republican and all Republicans are bad and if only the blueshirts are in office, then everything will be fine because it's whoever says a particular label applies to them that brings utopia about, after all. And most legislation ends up with questionable line items. anyhoo. Although I certainly agree that national forests shouldn't have any deadwood cleared, so they'll be more of a tinderbox when lightning strikes, and the forest fires will burn and burn and then people can die, and we all know that people pollute and are bad. But you do have a really pretty mouth. I'm serious about that.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Deep Cover

    by CaptDanielRoe

    The earth as a ball of minerals should certainly outlast us. Some people differ on the "worth" of species and ecosystems, aesthetic, scientific, and in their own right. Those are separate arguments in a way. Granted deforestation and killing the oceans does effect all of this. But let's not confuse sentiment (which I happen to harbor in spades) and practicality (which is all I am championing here).

  • May 30, 2006, 6:20 p.m. CST

    by CaptDanielRoe

    You explain what clean skies did exactly. You likely have no clue and are just doing the typical Republican obfustication maneuver, but really it just looks silly. ... And explain why you think a forest is just trees... It needs undergrowth or it's a tree farm, or a park... Scientific fact.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Seriously Outlawing Cars


    Nobody is seriously talking about outlawing cars? Well, why not? Maybe I should. I sense an unexploited niche here. Of course Al Gore won't outlaw cars. No balls. If I don't argue against fiction, who is going to? Who'se going to speak against this encroach of fiction on our beaches and lawns? I'm all for nuclear power. Especially if the radioactivity fallout from them gives us all mutated superpowers. That would rock! My power could be to clean up abandoned Superfund sites! Most politicians are for big government. The government has gotten bigger in the last six years than it did in the previous eight. Whether you look at military expenditures or social spending. Or sheer bureaucracy.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Forests Are Just Trees


    Did I say that? I don't think I did. Why are you arguing against things I never said? Typical Democrat obfuscation manuever. I think I said "trees are good". Are you saying that trees aren't good? Why do you hate trees? Why do you want to forests to burn and people to die? What's wrong with you and you're such a tree- and person-hating hater-of-good-things-like-lollipops-and-rainbows? I no longer find your mouth attractive.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST

    The Clean Air Act


  • May 30, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Outlawing Cars is a really stupid idea

    by zacdilone

    Everything Pixar does is gold.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:27 p.m. CST


    by Deep Cover

    I just saw your site, and I wouldn't call out Democrats here for being partisans. Unless you want to be a huge hypocrite, then fine.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:28 p.m. CST

    It's Really Good, They Should Make It a Movie


    Staring Al Gore as Part B - Ozone Protection. Full text of the act here:

  • May 30, 2006, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Deep Cover: Being a Hypocrite


    I do, and I don't need your approval. But thanks for it, all the same. Where did I call out Democrats for being partisans here? I'm not saying I didn't, I just forgot it if I did. Man, I didn't think about the Pixar thing. Damn, I'll have to reconsider my position on outlawing Cars. I loved The Incredible. And that Nemo was so cute. And tasty. Breaded and fried in animal fat. Mmm.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Capt Daniel Roe

    by Vynson

    Actually, I found being a certified weather observer to be a rather simple task. The course is easy. The test simple. And most weather observers I met had double digit IQs at best. So, yes, you are correct. Being a certified weather observer doesn't qualify one to do very much at all. It isn't a prestigious position requiring scads of knowledge. Which is my point, sir. These are the people taking the readings on which you and your beloved Al Gore are basing your dumbass assumptions.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:32 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    .....That's the Clean Air Act, not Bush's "Clear Skies." The Clean Air Act was good... The "Clear Skies" initiative GUTTED it. All of it is toast: Endangered Species, Superfund... It's down to a trickle of funding.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:33 p.m. CST


    by Deep Cover

    So we're in agreement that you're a tool. Thanks.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Call *the* environment *our* environment

    by Big Bad Clone

    People act like the enviroment is some shit going on in the tropical rainforests or some shit. Nah, it's all the same swimming pool and we can't pee in the pool faster than the filtration system can handle or we can't swim anymore. As the leading nations of the world we need to curb this shit before the developing nations start to act like assholes too. Imagine when Chinese and Indian people start driving SUVs because "its roomy". People can claim that industry doesn't hurt the air but just look at the shitty areas near industrial areas. Would you want to live there? Where do you think all that shit goes?

  • May 30, 2006, 6:34 p.m. CST

    CaptDanielRoe Backpedals


    Oh, first you attack the Clean Air Act and now you say you were talking about something different. Typical. Your mouth now disgusts me. I suppose next you'll tell me you like the forests and you don't want them to burn.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Deep Cover


    Look, I know you like me and stuff but I don't swing that way. And even if you did, you're not my type. Maybe if you were a little more buff. But you're not. You never will be. And we both know it. So, stop hitting on me.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:37 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    ....No..... Those are people with thermometers which, you know, are going to average out in their irregularities..... It's staitistically impossible, barring a very unlikely conspiracy to lie one way or the other, that so many temperation readings would fail to have errors up or down negate one another to an acceptable margin. .... But that's not the point I thought we were discussing. You were talking specifically about temperatures including the prehistoric period for which ample geologial record does in fact exist, I thought.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:40 p.m. CST

    big bad clone

    by Vynson

    I don't think anyone here is FOR pollution. But some of us are saying that Al Gore's global warming rant is just scaremongering. We want clean air and water. But we don't think the GM plant is responsible for hurricanes. There's a difference between responsible stewardship of the Earth and running around spouting every whacked out enviro-terror scenario that pops into Al Gore's head.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST


    by Onyx390

    Congrats on coming out wyrm. At first, me being a Liberal, I was a bit put off by you being a Republican. It's much like being a Socialist, though, in the sense that it has bad connonations with previously bad leaders sharing that title. It is truly refreshing to see a Republican that knows what hes talking about though.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Kevinwillis Your Making Stuff Up

    by CaptDanielRoe

    "Backpedalled?" I correctly stated "Clear Skies" in my original post on it above. You then made the error calling it "clean skies" which I mistakenly repeated. But in any case "clean skies" sounds a lot more like "clear skies" than the "clean air act." And at no time did I criticize the Clean Air Act. ..........You Republicans have to learn the value of having an actual point in a debate.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST

    GM Plant is Responsible for Hurricanes


    They have a machine there that makes them. Because they hate people and they want them all to die. Only when the nuclear plant radiation leaks end up giving us super powers will we be able to take them on. And by then, it may be too late.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Thanks for proving my point

    by Deep Cover

    And here's a tip - the "hip snarky" thing? Needs work. Mixing modern speech and 16th century values makes you sound like, well - a moron. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Deep Cover: Sorry I Hurt Your Feelings


    But I think a clean break is just better. If you feel you need to get a last dig in, I understand. It's sad. For you. But I understand.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Oh And Forest Fires

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Are healthy. They only become tragic when your forests are reduced to the size of postage stamps so that there is too little to lose in the natural cycle. What's needed is more forested land and better-funded fire response. That "dead wood" is what keeps the nutrients in the soild. Take it out generation after generation and the trees will die.... Nevermind that the forest will be dead for the most part since most of it is "underbrush."

  • May 30, 2006, 6:48 p.m. CST

    Hurricane Machine?

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Okay that tears it. 'Night.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Capt Dan Roe

    by Vynson

    Perhaps you could tell me what the temperatures were at exactly noon in the following places: Lima, Peru on 10 December 1919 Moscow, Russia on 19 August 0904 Jerusalem on 25 December 0005 Deadhorse, Alaska on 02 May 2423BCE......what was the temperature in Gonder, Ethiopia at noon one year ago today? within a half degree Celcius will be fine....or does the geologic record not provide that information? Which is my point. Did you know that the person handling the thermometer at the launchpad of the space shuttle Challenger did not know how to properly operate and read his instrument and that the faulty readings of that morning are partially to blame for the deaths of seven people? But I guess that should have "averaged out" eh?

  • May 30, 2006, 6:52 p.m. CST


    by Deep Cover

    That sounds more to me like YOU getting "a last dig in". Like I said, you're not too good at this whole thing. Keep trying, though. Can we get an ignore feature on the boards, please?

  • May 30, 2006, 6:54 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    I have to run but I fail to see what pertinence what you just says has to global warming and the myriad other good reasons to pursue alternative energy and transit.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST


    by Vynson

    Actually, with modern man around, we have fewer forest fires and they are better controlled. Before us, a lightning strike could set a blaze unchecked by anything but the stray whim of mother nature. Man is part of nature. And not always just a bad part. But, as scientists have recently discovered, plants produce greenhouse gasses and are a major polluter. But the eco boys still plant trees... but get their panties in a wad when someone buys an SUV.

  • May 30, 2006, 6:59 p.m. CST


    by Vynson

    Sir, I am pointing out that we don't have sufficient reason to assume that we are causing global warming when we can't even figure out what might constitute it since we don't have enough data for presupposition. However, I understand we cannot continue this until such data is collected, so I wish you a pleasant evening.

  • May 30, 2006, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Will the real life scientist please stand up?!

    by Knugen

    No? Dind't think so. What if you fascist who call yourselves republicans stop and actually think for a second? What is the liberal agenda? What is the goal of Mr. Gore? What are the goals of multinational corporations and people with immense wealth and power? One side wants power and money and the other... yeah what do they want?

  • May 30, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST

    Al Gore: Good Person, Bad Politician

    by Flim Springfield

    Same goes for Bob Dole.

  • May 30, 2006, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Anyone who thinks we can "save" the earth...

    by slone13 conceited, egotistical and extremely naive. Seriously. This planet Earth was around for millions of years before the first homo sapien showed up. And it's gonna be around for millions more after the last homo sapien dies. Let's enjoy the ride while we can instead of trying to extend our lease on a planet that has no concern whatsoever for whether or not it is inhabitbale to the likes of us assholes. Last one to leave, turn out the lights.

  • May 30, 2006, 8:28 p.m. CST

    Forest Fires Are Healthy


    Like hurricanes and earthquakes. Although . . . why do we needed a better funded fire response if forest fires are healthy? Wait, I know. Because that somehow blames greedy conservatives and Wascally Republicans! The cads! You know what happened with the forest burned, don't you? Banjo boy played the banjo, that's waht.

  • May 30, 2006, 8:30 p.m. CST

    One Side Wants Power and Money . . .


    While the other side wants money and power. That's, like, completely different! In regards to me previous post, and all subsequent post that would seem to spread the foul and damnable lie that I cannot spell, or am inordinately prone to typos, may I only say that my repeated consumption of Jack Daniels and Coke has nothing to do with it. Whatsoever.

  • May 30, 2006, 8:32 p.m. CST

    You know...

    by Dataset

    I'm a Democrat. And a liberal. And I don't know what the fuck the Democratic party is doing. I don't even think they know. My party is a fucking mess. Republicans deserve every victory. We dems cannot complain about anything, because WE DON'T HAVE OUR SHIT TOGETHER. We all know what's wrong with the current order, but we won't counter it with anything but complaints. Sometimes I miss the days before liberals were such flaccid hippies. Instead of putting pansies in guns, toss a molotov at the gunman. The guilt for the evil of this regime is shared by us all, because we said nothing. (and whining on the internet does not count).

  • May 30, 2006, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Deep Cover: I Second The Notion


    Of an ignore feature. I think it would probably best for you to put me out of your mind. What good it is to pine for one you can never have? I'm sorry, I truly am. But it's better this way. On the other hand, I feel kind of like Sandra Bullock trading mail with Keanu Reeves in the trailer for "The Lake House". Unrequieted love, done correctly, can be most cinematic. It does make one pause. And pick up his banjo.

  • May 30, 2006, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Anathema1973, I must disagree


    The Republicans don't deserve every victory just because Democrats are worse at getting their shit together. Marginally. But, I'm a Republican (registered, I vote for more Democrats on the local level) and a classical conservative, and I don't think the Republicans in Washington have a clue as to how to lead on issues, how to support their base, or how to cater to middle-of-the-road political realities without completely losing their base. But I also believe good political outcomes more resemble the output of massively complicated particle systems than two-or-more well organized articulate parties competing on ideas. I do agree that Democrats ought to be more for things than against, but I think the same can be said of Republicans (maybe less so, in some election cycles, but not in 1998, for example, when the Republicans were all anti-Clinton, and the last time they suffered significant losses at the ballot box). But I think both parties could use some serious shit-getting-together. In my opinion.

  • May 30, 2006, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Flaccid Energy and Jiggly Girls

    by timberwolf4545

    In Brazil, traffic jams smell like pancakes because they make e85 out of sugar cane. We don't have the balls to do that here.

  • May 30, 2006, 9:09 p.m. CST

    re:How can anyone be a Republican these days?

    by grendel824

    I agree - it's only slightly less shameful and embarrassing than being a Democrat.

  • May 30, 2006, 9:29 p.m. CST

    More warming please, I HATE fucking snow ;)

    by ComputerGuy68

  • May 30, 2006, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Gore Won

    by Saluki

    And the courts screwed us all. When ordering others to not count votes, does your soul just die a little more, Justices? We need intelligence in this country, and Dean's 50-State plan is starting to unite us again. Excellent review, great points on being a Republican.

  • May 30, 2006, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Is it Balls or Infrastructure


    And, let's be honest, wouldn't there be specials on CNN talking about "Smells Like Pancakes: Kills Like Poison"? "That's right, generic newsperson. It may smell good, but it's filling our lungs full of empty calories. Death soon follows! Not to mention, all the sugar cane gas is threatening to cause the extinction of the once-plentiful Ihop." But if we can turn jiggly girls into an alternative energy source, I'm 100% in. Today. I'll vote for that politician.

  • May 30, 2006, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Ashamed of Being a Republicrat


    But let's be serious. Does any of us, Democrican or Republicrat, really feel like we're ever voting for anything other than the lesser of two evils when we cast our ballot? I admit, I was jazzed coming in to 2004 to vote for Bush--which, frankly, was unusual for me. And was clearly mistaken. Not that I would, in retrospect, vote for Skerry, only that I feel that, in fact, I was only voting for the lesser of two evils--again--and, in the grand scheme of things, maybe not lesser, only different. But, the other day, Bush apologized for saying "Bring it on." Or saying that Osama was wanted "Dead or alive" (apparently, not wanted all that much would be more like it). Now THAT does make me ashamed to be a registered Republican. Hell, yes, say "Bring it on'. Dammit. We're getting two new political parties for the new century: the Demopussies and the Republiwussies. Scientific fact. In other news, I've heard they discovered away to suppress the mutant X-gene. Some people are calling it a cure. But I say, they don't need to be cured! There's nothing to be "cured" of! There's nothing wrong with any of us, for that matter.

  • May 30, 2006, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Yes, I Vote For More

    by Saluki

    Kerry would have been a good president. Great? Excellent? Who knows, but he had the chops to be GOOD. That choice was clear to anyone paying attention. So is the upcoming vote between Strickland and Blackwell. That is pure Good vs Evil right there my friends. However, there are other races where you know you are voting the right man or woman in and... You just know they won't DO anything. Not really. They are career, and it just become the same-old-same-old. That said, I'm nowhere near as jaded as others. The Democrats and Republicans have never been so different. Look at the way the House votes. The Senate votes. It is nearly party line on 3/4 of the issues.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Traditional Republicans or "classical" Republicans

    by andenu

    ... should just go ahead and switch to the Libertarian party right about now. The GOP is shot.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:08 p.m. CST

    *sigh* once again I call for the banning of GreatOne.

    by Lenny Nero

    Not for his issues. But for being a stubborn, selfish and cruel malcontent. Disagree with him, and you're an idiot. Welcome to AICN politics, people.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:18 p.m. CST

    The GOP is Shot


    Sure does seem that way. If I didn't feel obligated to vote against Democrats, I'd join the Libertarian party (they might be the best choice--while I agree there is a place for pragmatism and, well, politics in the polticial process, politicians who are all politician and no principal or leadership stink (ala, the modern Republicrat party that holds pretty much all the seats in both houses) . . . so maybe Libertarians would only be 20% pragmatic. And I'd be perfectly happy to vote straight Libertarian, if I didn't feel morally obligated to vote against Democrats. But that may change, if the Democrats lose in 2006, and Pelosi and Dean end up getting the boot for more Third Way Democrats, who I might not exactly vote for but wouldn't be motivated to vote against (and I voted for Harold Ford, Jr., Democrat, for congress in 2004). And I'm tempted to vote for him for senate, just because the Republicrat (Bob Corker) won't mention vouchers or Social Security reform, or any other typically conservative issue, and is sticking to mainstream, focus-grouped crap. Sorta like Frist-lite. Wow. That's great. Shit, give me Harold Ford, Jr., dammit.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:24 p.m. CST

    "Junk Science"

    by Petro45

    It's very fun how some people have bastardized the term "junk science." The term was originally used in connection with so-called "scientific" theories of dubious reliability offered by expert witnesses in litigation. These theories (such as the idea of silicone breast implants causing diseases) were deemed "junk science" because they were not supported by any peer-reviewed scientific studies, were against the great weight of authority, and/or depended on misleadingly citing existing studies for propositions that the studies did not really support. Today, what global warming skeptics deem "junk science" is supported by virtually every peer-reviewed study, and it is the politically-motivated global warming "skeptics" who misstate facts and cherry-pick portions of studies out of context. It is so sad, and so ironic, to hear these people call global warming "junk science" -- up is down, black is white, etc.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Disagree With Me, and You're . . .


    A no good, low down polecat. What in the tarnation are ya doin' here, anyway? Seriously, GreatOne seems identical to a lot of the left-leaning folks posting here, in terms of the whole "disagree with him, and you're an idiot" thing. Frankly, I find people who disagree with me strangely attractive. And I don't think anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot. Incorrect and/or incomplete in their assessment does make anybody an idiot. Fact is, most people have good reasons, in the context of their experience, contemplation, and lives, for the positions they hold. And it sounds sorta like (though I don't know that I believe it to be true) that Inconvenient Truth might, to some extent, acknowledge that not everybody who doesn't drink the Global Warming Kool-Aid (to borrow a favorite bipartisan phrase) is an idiot, malcontent, or Snidely Whiplash Conservative. BTW, although I may not agree with Massawyrm's self-congratulatory political assessment, his review may actually provoke me to the see the movie, when I otherwise would have passed. Because this doesn't sound like the sort of "devil conservatives" preachifying that has dominated a lot of his speeches (even recent ones). Although I'm still a lot more excited about "Who Killed the Electric Car?" . . . Because the electric car sounds cool. And it does seem a little suspicious, how it got the boot. Even if I'm naturally skeptical of conspiracies.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST Moral obligations?

    by Saluki

    As a Democrat, I'm interest to listen to why you must vote against us on the grounds of 'moral obligations'. Honestly, I'm all ears.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Who Killed the Electric Car?

    by Saluki

    I've heard this movie blows away Gore's film. Hopefully it gets a wide release. I'm getting tired of just renting cool movies like these.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Junk Science


    Is a misnomer, because often the science is perfectly legitimate, it's the conclusions being drawn or extrapolated by folks with political agendas that are junk. And, really, it's a cop out. If there are specific problems with the ideas about global warming, let's hear them, instead of calling it all "junk science". In fact, a more accurate term for the political movement seeking to capitalize on a global warming scare would be to call it "junk solutions", because it is the purely political solutions--ala the Kyoto treaty--that are more "junk". And, while I made a point of the costs of outlawing cars, and the honest answer is that "nobody" is talking about it, and it would never happen, that is exactly what happened with DDT, with dead malarial consequences. When, perhaps, cooler heads may have just restricted the use of DDT in certain areas, or on certain crops (speaking on making policy on the emotional content of an argument, rather than on peer reviewed science). And, speaking of peer reviewed science, what if there is a big conspiracy of scientist and they are all out to get us? Who is it, after all, trying to take away our coffee and force-feed us brocolli? Think about it. "It's in revalations, people!"

  • May 30, 2006, 10:52 p.m. CST

    Saluki: Jeeze, I don't have the time . . .


    To do that justice. To even begin. Paul Wellstone memorial. Chris Reeves would have walked again if we had elected Democrats. Vote for me and we'll really tax rich people because you should hate them because they are rich and you're not and you should resent them because we tell you to and your victim-status should define your life. By the way, if you don't subscribe to our narrow view of civil rights and affirmative action, then you're a bigot! Republicans are crooks! They've never worked an honest day in their life (Those last two are Kerry and Dean quotes). Vouchers, despite the fact they demonstrably help poor kids in bad schools, are bad--because Republicans like them. The most minor Social Security privatization of any kind for any reason to any degree is bad, because it gives the individual direct ownership of the money in their personal lockbox, rather than the government, and because the Republicans like it so we have to hate it. Hissssss! Why should you vote for me? Why, don't you see what a Nazi is? I'm not a BushChimpHitlerNazi. Red-state voters are from: Jesusland. Dumbfukistan. Oh, wait, let's quote Gore: the extra-chromosome wing of the Republican party. I'm so worried about France thinks about us, I think the United States should base it's policy on what France thinks about us. Democrats are just plain, honest, good-feeling folks while Republicans are selfish, shrill, hairy-backed midgets (that's a paraphrased quote from notable Democrat, Garrison Keillor, in his lovely tome, "Homegrown Democrat". And the clear antipathy many on the left exhibit to the American serviceman, that bugs me. But in politics, that's mostly folks like Dick Durbin and John Murtha. And that doesn't even scratch the surface. Republicans are, on average, at least 4% better than the Democrats, all things consider, but a complicated mathematical forumula that I use, but cannot here disclose. Hope that helps.

  • May 30, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Saluki: Come Down to Memphis . . .


    And we'll go see "Who Killed The Electric Car". I'm pretty sure it'll get play "On the Square", here. So, if it does, come down, and we'll build a bridge to the future. Because the whole electric car thing sounds a little odd. Maybe there's another side to the story, but, at the very least, it seems extraordinarily myopic on the part of the car-making corporate bureaucracy.

  • May 30, 2006, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the invite...

    by Saluki

    I'd say that a good deal of these critiques of the party are fair, and that the Republican's actions have spoken louder than the Democrat's words when it has come to forming my views. I would only take defense on Durbin/Murtha, as I feel they are sincere enough to at least provide alternatives, which any good opposition party should (and waited too long to provide). Again, thanks for the invite... Jesusland just started looking a little better. =D

  • May 30, 2006, 11:29 p.m. CST

    And While We're At It... A Better Name...

    by Saluki

    'The United States of Canada' has a nice ring to it, but I'm far more fond of 'Heathenopia'.

  • May 30, 2006, 11:35 p.m. CST

    "Junk Science"

    by mattw

    You people yelling "junk science" remind me of the administrative assistant at my old job. Once, when she heard us talking about Jimmy Carter's involvement in Habitat For Humanity and his Nobel Peace Prize, she said, "Ugh. Jimmy Carter sucks." When we asked her why, she had no rationale other than, "He just sucks." Although she didn't know when Carter was president and couldn't name one of his successes or failures, she had clearly heard from her Republican father that she's not supposed to like any Democrat, whether or not he had any redeeming qualities. Stop yelling about what you think your opinion is supposed to be and listen for a change. Out of curiousity, how many of you claiming Gore is full of shit have seen the movie?

  • May 31, 2006, 12:51 a.m. CST

    As we are all driving around in our hybrid Toyotas

    by Lezbo Milk

    in the not so distant future: China, India, Mexico and South America are going to be going gang busters and going through a metamorphasis much like the U.S. did from the late 1800's to the more recent past. During this time they will be experiencing industrialization on a scale that we didn't even come close to, and they will be giving the rest of the modern world a big FUCK YOU as they move from 3rd world contrys to something more like the U.S. and Europe. So if you guys think we can change the world and turn back global're cracked! Our greenhouse gas emissions are going to be baby shit compared to what we are going to be seeing from China, and SE Asia, and there won't be a fucking thing we can do about it.

  • May 31, 2006, 1:01 a.m. CST

    Jimmy Carter is An Apologist for Castro


    I'm not a big fan of that. Building houses for the poor, on the other hand, is pretty cool. He also "lusted after women in his pants" (he said something like that, I'm paraphrasing), and that's pretty good. And, you never know, the administrative assistant in question may have had a degree in Suckology from Bigsuck University. So she might have known just a little bit more than you.

  • May 31, 2006, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Lezbomilk: The 3rd World


    That's why we need to launch an aggressive program of building giant C02 destroying lasers, which we will mount on top of all our tallest buildings, and go to war with greenhouse gases. And they sure will come in handy when the aliens attack. Scientific fact.

  • May 31, 2006, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Al Gore"I have ridden the Giant Moon Worm!"

    by Teamwak

    Fry "Good for him" All hail Futurama and Al Gore for appearing in it. lol

  • May 31, 2006, 6:02 a.m. CST


    by BannedOnTheRun

    Pop-culture loving, mass-transit taking, fluorescent lighting, energy conserving conservative Republican here.

  • May 31, 2006, 7:48 a.m. CST

    by Petro45

    There's a lot wrong in your rant, but in the interest of time I'm just going to take on the one thing that really jumped out at me: "The most minor Social Security privatization of any kind for any reason to any degree is bad, because it gives the individual direct ownership of the money in their personal lockbox, rather than the government, and because the Republicans like it so we have to hate it." Republicans seem to be in denial about one thing -- THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE SOCIAL SECURITY! (Sorry for the caps). You're acting like the people are clamoring for a change, and the evil Democrats are stopping it because they want to run people's lives. You have it completely backwards. Polls overwhelmingly show that the people DO NOT WANT to privatize social security. Nevertheless, some Republicans (including GWB) have been talking about their desire to abolish (not just privatize) social security for years. Privatization, which not many people are asking for, is the first step in abolishment, which no one but the National Review is asking for. Again, the vast majority of the public is against privatization - that is why it failed, not because of the Democrats. REPUBLICANS abandoned the President's plan when they saw that their own, red-state constituents would riot if the plan went through.

  • May 31, 2006, 8 a.m. CST

    Giant Robots Do The Work of Dozens of Smaller Robots


    Also, Giant Robots do the work that smaller robots just won't do. Don't confuse the issue here. Jimmy Carter is opposed to the Giant Robots just because they went on a rampage and destroyed seven states. We all have bad days. Mistakes were made, sure. Can't we just move on?

  • May 31, 2006, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Privatizing Petro45


    Dude, I'm not a politician. Nobody is talking about abolishing Social Security (come on), and not that many people even want to seriously privatize it. But even 4% into a private fund is bad. You disagree, fine. Republicans suck, but they were less against Social Security reform than the Democrats, thus why I am morally obligated to vote against most Democrats (and some Republicans) on that issue, amongst others. How that's wrong, you really didn't manage to demonstrate.

  • May 31, 2006, 8:42 a.m. CST

    I think this movie...

    by Kentucky Colonel

    could use a little titty.

  • May 31, 2006, 8:57 a.m. CST

    Social Security Reform is Junk Science

    by Petro45

    First off, why do we need to reform social security in the first place? Why, just the other day I read an article in the New York Times saying that social security isn't really in danger. Why the rush to do something about it before there is a consensus that there is really a problem? Its really just a bunch of whackos, scare-mongering us into thinking that we need to do something that will inconvenience us. I personally have never seen any indication that there is a problem with social security -- in fact, an article in New Republic reports that millions of people in this country are currently receiving social security checks!!! So how is there a problem? I don't believe that my grandchildren will suffer any ill effects by my refusal to reform social security in my lifetime, and nothing that any partisan nutjobs say will convince me to the contrary. (Whoa - that argument sounded familiar for some reason). Just kidding. Social security reform can be the subject of an interesting, good-faith discussion that, to be honest, I just don't have the time to get into right now (starting work). And I'm sure many on the boards will be happy if we don't get into it here.

  • May 31, 2006, 9:22 a.m. CST

    When victimhood is your lifestyle...

    by rock-me Amodeo

    ...then empowerment is your enemy. This used to be what differentiated the Democrats from the Republicans. Repubs were for small government, limited welfare, school vouchers and helping small business become as large as they wanted without government interference. Did you know Social Security was supposed to be a limited measure, too? And Democrats were all for loading up the government with all these powers that the average citizen could use, not realizing that they are being paid for by that citizen (and in fact, some 90% of all taxes are paid for by the top 10% of wage earners, but who cares about the evil rich? Unless you become one) Nowadays, I'm not sure either party stands for either one entirely ...It's getting so I can't tell the good guys from the bad guys without a talkback.

  • May 31, 2006, 9:41 a.m. CST

    Social Security Warming


    What office are you running for that you'll be able to affect Social Security reform? Because what good will it do me to convince you that Social Security reform is a good thing? I think a modest inclusion of private investments, owned by the individual paying into the fund that can be passed on to surviving family members upon death is a good thing. While there was certainly scaremongering on both sides (Social Security reform with lead to Global Warming! You will have no choice but to travel on planes with snakes! Seniors will be eating Alpo!), I think of it more as a positive step that empowers the individual and would end up with retirees getting anywhere from a little-to-a-lot more money. And a richer senior population would be good for the overal economy, and the seniors specifically. Of course, ideally, individuals should just invest as much as they can on their own in Roth IRAs . . . which, of course, upper-class folks generally do, so Social Security reform would be the biggest benefit to the middle-class and the poor. And they'll be fine. So why do anything to improve their retirements? Again, the Republicans are slightly better on this issue--some of them--than the Democrats overall. So I may have to vote against Democrats come November. But I haven't decided. Harold Ford, Jr., who is running for Senate in my state, was at one time for a form of Social Security reform, before the DNC beat him into submission on this issue. So . . . maybe I won't vote against the Democrats this year. Haven't decided yet.

  • May 31, 2006, 10:06 a.m. CST


    by Saluki

    The top 10% don't pay 90% of income taxes, they pay 65%. It is the top 20% that pays 90%. Which still doesn't matter, because the difference between the top 1% and the top 2% is worlds away. It is the 1% that we correctly focus on. Evil? Evil is ignoring real economic problems, and then storing away your millions, all while throwing a happy face onto the affair. The top 1% is made of good men, and evil men. They should be watched like no others. Going onto the subject of Bush's SS plan... It doesn't work. A cool concept, yes, but the way it was to be implemented was going to cost more than it would pay out because of interest returns. Too bad. SS is good to go for another 40 years, and if our workforce continues to increase, it'll continue forever. The problem is in the workforce. More jobs, more workers... And more F***ing. We need more people altogther. Therefore, gentlemen, I propose we invade Canada/Mexico for an increased population and more secure borders, and then divert all American companies sending jobs to SouthEast Asia to come back to the new United States of America... All 100 of them. You know you want it.

  • May 31, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST

    No bail out for Republicans...

    by cookylamoo

    I object to this whole "Let's elect Democrats just to flush the system" plan and then go back to stident conservatism. Why should Democrats spend four misrerable years in office dealing with your deficet and your Draconian justice system, just so you can make fun of our getting blow jobs and impeach us? Screw that. You made your neo-con bed, now lie in it. You don't have the Liberal intellectuals to kick around anymore.

  • May 31, 2006, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Liberal Intellectuals?

    by rock-me Amodeo

    Must. stifle. laughter. If you had said Democratic intellectuals, i might have agreed with you. I've been a democrat since way before the party was hijacked by every liberal fringe group. Ah, the heck with this, I'm gonna go eat some Jumbo shrimp and work on an exact estimate of where this talkback went wrong. Or maybe I'll go get legally drunk.

  • May 31, 2006, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Social Security and Global Warming

    by biggles2_22

    OMG! Someone tell me that there's a person who can type that actually thinks that SS isn't the biggest Ponzi scheme perpetrated on the American public since, well, the Ponzi scheme. Let's see, a retirement plan that I pay into my entire life, get to enjoy when I'm almost dead, pays pennies to my family upon me going belly-up, and then, what? Oh yes, nothing. What drooling retard actually thinks that this is a good deal?! (Yes, FDR actually did concieve this as a retirement plan. Yes, it was supposed to be temporary.) The similarities in the arguments of SS and Global Warming? The opponents of government involvement know (yes, KNOW) that the goverment not only will not fix the problem, but God forbid, make it worse. There has never been a problem that government hasn't made worse. Want proof?! Look at the "Clinton" years. Here you had an administration and legislative branch that was paralyzed, due to the fact that they were opposing parties. Pretty good years, eh? You liberal shrivs can't seem to get that through your mother-government-teet-suckling heads. Want even more proof?!!! Look at socialist countries (that's what we're really talking about right?). Think the French are enjoying 18% unemployment? How bout them Canooks to the north? I lived there for over a year and let me tell ya, their health care system is a fucked-up mess and unemployment is no big deal for a big part of the population. Yep, I'm a fascist neo-con, although you libs throw around that word so much, most of you don't even know what a fucking fascist is and, like race baiting, your hijacking of the word has rendered it useless for those that may be suffering from the real deal.

  • May 31, 2006, 11:11 a.m. CST

    The hell?

    by Saluki

    You mean a democrat before 1964? And how does one become illegally drunk? Thanks for offering nothing. How about some more gems like these? Stephen Colbert was not funny. Iraq sent its WMDs to Syria. Democrats don't want to wiretap terrorists. Karl Rove has a faulty memory. Scooter Libby has a faulty memory. Tom DeLay is like Jesus Christ. No one could have anticipated that the levees would be breached. We do not torture. There is no global warming. There is global warming, but humans didn't cause it. John McCain is a straight-shooter. Dick Cheney is a sober shooter. Nobody at the White House knows Jack Abramoff. The economy is great. Evolution isn't supported by the facts. Diebold voting machines are secure. Fox News is fair and balanced. Mission accomplished. No one could have anticipated the Iraqi insurgency. The budget deficit will be cut in half in four years. Anyone who thinks Dubai shouldn't control our ports is racist. Terry Schiavo wants to live. Andrea Clark wants to die. We've turned a corner in Iraq. There's a war on Christmas. There's no civil war in Iraq. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Up is down. Black is white. Bush won Florida in 2000. The rule of law is important. This administration will hold itself accountable. Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. No one could have foreseen the failure of FEMA. Kathleen Blanco never asked for federal help. Ellen DeGeneres caused Hurricane Katrina. Gay couples seek to destroy Marriage. Ignorance is strength. Man existed alongside the dinoraurs. The earth is 6,000 years old. We're not interested in banning contraceptives. America is a Christian nation. Bush is a compassionate conservative. Bush is no longer an alcoholic. Dubya owns an honest-to-God real ranch. Guns don't kill people... pretzels do. John Kerry "outed" Mary Cheney. John Kerry shot himself in the leg to earn his medals. Al Gore thinks he invented the internet. Harry Whittington got himself peppered. Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. No one could have anticipated airplanes flying into buildings. War is peace. We have removed the Taliban from Afghanistan. The Iraqis will welcome us with open arms and flowers. Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire. The insurgency is in its last throes. We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Iraqi oil will pay for the war and the reconstruction. Gas prices are high because of environmental regulations. Drilling the ANWR will lower the price of oil. Unemployment numbers have never been so low. Tax breaks for Hummers is good for the economy. Tax cuts increase revenue. The estate tax hurts family farms. Bush will make health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families. Healthy Forests Initiative will help forests. No Child Left Behind will help all children. Healthy Skies Initiative will reduce air pollution. Freedom is slavery. The government is tapping your phone to protect you. Dissent is unpatriotic. Karl Rove couldn't have done it because he knew he'd get caught. Bush and his twin were funny. Jeff Gannon is a serious journalist. The media is liberal. You're either with us, or against us. A vote for John Kerry, is a vote for Al Qaeda. George Bush doesn't read the polls. Everyone had the same intelligence. Iraq is the central front on the war on terrorism. All options are on the table. Those trucks we found in Iraq were mobile biological weapons labs. These are not assertions. These are facts backed up by solid intelligence. Terri Schiavo is responsive. Anyone who leaks information will no longer be part of this administration. HPV vaccine will cause teen sex cults. Harriet would be a great justice. Terrorists didn't know we could use wiretaps until they read about it in the paper. I will restore honor and integrity to the White House. Nothing is more important in a time of war than cutting taxes. The national anthem should only be sung in English. I'm a uniter, not a divider. Whenever we say 'wiretaps' that means we're going to get a court order. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. George Bush was successful businessman. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

  • May 31, 2006, 11:16 a.m. CST


    by Hyphin

    is it just me or is that word used a lot in this review Now I have to go watch the Kingdom of Heaven Directors Cut...anyone who wants a cinematic piece of pure "HEAVEN" watch the directors cut.

  • May 31, 2006, 11:17 a.m. CST


    by biggles2_22

    Loved your rant. Here's the capper...Please let these people (Republicans or Democrats) be in charge of my retirement and medical care!!!!

  • May 31, 2006, 11:33 a.m. CST has a better review

    by Curious Jorge

    Massawyrm a "traditional conservative"? Yeah, it's the upside-down cross you're bouncing on that gives you away. Or maybe he means that he's a conservative relative to Harry and the rest of the AICN crew. That, I could see; Harry is about as far left as they come. Anyway, for a FACT-BASED review of Gore's movie, check out this web page:

  • May 31, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST


    by Saluki

    I think we agree that a balance is a the most productive, if not the most radical, government. Of course, it would be even better if we had at least FOUR parties to represent us. I say this as a lifelong Democrat that no one party will have all the answers, nor the will to face every problem.

  • May 31, 2006, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Can't we just all agree

    by Kentucky Colonel

    Titties are fun. Big ones are all soft and mushy (not my favorite, but fun to look at) or full bodied and pert, usually man-made (like on the OC or any other pretty-people show) or the large A-cup/Smaller B-cup tits that will never get all saggy (like my wifey) or evey flat chested girls with sensitive nipples. For christsakes people, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE TITS! And a cute behind. Little button noses...and to think I just got laid less than 10 hours ago....

  • May 31, 2006, 11:49 a.m. CST Is A Front

    by Saluki

    ... The brainchild of Steve Milloy, a man on record that enjoyed the death of a a noted environmental scientist, and is funded by 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association, National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace. The most fun is reading his Ozone articles, and the graphs that don't match up to what he is saying.

  • May 31, 2006, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Yes, junkscience has been well and truly crushed.

    by Lord Asriel

    There's even links to how biased it is further up this TB. Now can anyone who doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming please answer these questions, which have already been posted: 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?

  • May 31, 2006, 12:31 p.m. CST

    This is why it's a waste of time

    by TheEwokThatDied

  • May 31, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST

    maggiesfarm need some english lessons.

    by Lord Asriel

    "...I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is..." In no way can that be construed as rationalizing lies. It says he wants to constantly badger people with his facts and theories. Annoying? Yes. Lies? No.

  • May 31, 2006, 12:54 p.m. CST

    *Yawn* What Was This Movie About?


    Oh, yeah. Titties. Oh, BTW, pretty much everything is a front for something else. Cuz everybody needs somebody to pay for something.

  • May 31, 2006, 12:59 p.m. CST

    so if everything's a front, why do you believe...

    by Lord Asriel

    in the ones who claim global warming is a myth? I was skeptical myself, but there really is overwhelming data supporting it from the EPA too the british government. And besides, junkscience claims it's non-partisan, when it quite clearly is.

  • May 31, 2006, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Junkscience and Traditional Conservative

    by Massawyrm 1

    2 points. 1) The link. Front or not, this article actually doesn't address anything from the movie whatsoever, simply common global warming arguments. As I said, Gore's position isn't unassailable - but this writer clearly has yet to see the movie. Thus it is a WORTHLESS reaction to the film. Write something when you know what you're arguing against first, dingleberry. 2) The pogo-cross vs. traditional conservative. First of all, you've mistakenly confused CHRISTIAN with CONSERVATIVE. While I am both, the terms are in fact mutually exclusive. and Secondly, the artwork for my avatar was commished by Grande Rojo himself, the lefty agnostic who LOVES poking fun at me for being both Christian and Conservative. And he loves rattling your cages as well - hence the artwork.

  • May 31, 2006, 1:34 p.m. CST

    - meant to say

    by Massawyrm 1

    while the terms are not mutually exclusive, they are not remotely the same thing. Hence the comment in my review ("Which doesn't mean what many of you think it means.")

  • May 31, 2006, 2:06 p.m. CST

    setting things straight.

    by Dmann

    Massawyrm doesnt watch fox... he doesnt have cable. He barely watches Television. If he wasnt republican, I would suspect he was a hippie commie just for that. Also, isn't the arguing that there is no global warming essentially arguing that spewing toxic gases into the atmosphere is good? That companies should be peddling the same basic tech that we had during the industrial revolution? That big oil should still have a stranglehold on our transportation needs and we shouldnt try and find new ways to do things, innovate, and not friggin pollute? Youre arguing in favor of burying your head in the sand and saying "its all ok." I wish the GOP was all like Massawyrm, I might join. As is, the DNC isnt really tripping my trigger either, I just dont wanna join with a bunch of fundamentalist wack job holy rollers.

  • May 31, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST

    You Know, Jor-El Had the Same Problem on Krypton

    by cookylamoo

    They just wouldn't listen. Go to

  • May 31, 2006, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Confusion on point

    by KCMOSHer

    I think everyone is missing a point here. I don't think anyone denies that the climate is changing. The weather here in LA, year round, is VERY different than what it was ten years ago when I first came out. The question is: did we induce that change, or is this a natural change? Overwhelming evidence supports the fact that climate changes happen with startling frequency on this planet, if you look at the big picture. An article was just released stating that the arctic was tropical 55 million years ago. We all know about the ice age. None of those people drove SUV's or burned coal for electricity. Oh wait, if science is to be believed, there weren't even -people- then. The theory Gore is pushing (and has been since 'Earth In The Lurch' way back when) is that man is responsible for this latest change, and if he changes his ways, he can somehow -stop- the change. This is arrogance and stupidity at it's finest. As past evidence shows, the climate on this planet shifts. It just does. No beings on this planet have -ever- caused or stopped a global climate change. Everyone seems to be taking the position that Gore's data in the film is wrong. I don't think it's all wrong, but the conclusions he's drawn from it are. Climate change is happening. Just like it happened in the 70's when science reared up and declared global COOLING was going on and feared a new ice age. What we have are a bunch of incredibly arrogant men who forget that anything existed before the 20th century. George Carlin did a brilliant rant about environmentalism which ended in the very simple, elegant, INCONVENIENT truth: the planet isn't going anywhere....WE ARE!

  • May 31, 2006, 4:18 p.m. CST


    by Vynson

    So maybe Al Gor-El can rocket his kids to some safe planet? I always thought the best Superman story would be one where we discover that Jor-El was a freakin' whack job serving time in a Kryptonian prison for having sent his kid into space... and that Krypton is doing just swell.

  • May 31, 2006, 4:23 p.m. CST

    One more time for the cheap seats...

    by Lord Asriel

    1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?

  • May 31, 2006, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.

    by Marduk

    "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

  • May 31, 2006, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Both Parties Insane of Late

    by Roboteer

    Wow, was that like the most insincerely apologetic, qualified semi-endorsement of GW ever? Someone protesteth too much. Like when the seminar callers start out with, "I'm a Bush supporter from wayyy back, BUT..." Some absolute facts in this debate are that CO2 levels have gone up and that human emissions at least contribute to them. Global temps have also gone up a modest amount. Beyond that, it's all conjecture and politics with not nearly enough data over a long enough period to mean much. Clearly the catastrophists have the biggest megaphone, 20 times the resources, and most of the media as accomplices. Most university scientists can only get funding and coverage if they continue to show an impending crisis needing 'further study'. Inconvenient science like that coming from the national hurricane center which clearly states big/numerous hurricanes occur on a cycle all their own unrelated to increasing temps, are in fact being picketed by Marxist environmentalists as we speak, demanding these scientists either be 're-educated' or fired. Extreme weather is NORMAL to use the old weather service term. There's NO link established between GW and extreme weather. We are also not talking about saving the Earth, which has experienced far, far worse weather calamities over and over again than what's at stake here. It's been shown that a certain amount of warming is actually helpful for homo sapiens. When mild winters and longer growing seasons failed to have us all running scared, GW tried saying it would lead to another ice age. Note that ice sheets have NEVER advanced when CO2 levels were this high. But the big blind spot on the Left is this... If man caused this by accident, we can sure as hell fix it when we need to on purpose. If precious beachfront property and cities begin sliding under the waves, ya think capitalism might find a way to stop losing a trillion trillion dollars? As we speak, companies are studying technology that would suck vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, turning it into water. But of course to the left, technology and capitalism are always the problem, NEVER the solution. What is their solution? Kyoto. A 'solution' no American could back without being anti-American, ignorant, or both. As our buddy Jacques Chirac and his environmental minister have both been quoted, "Kyoto was never meant to protect the environment. It was to equalize the economic playing field." Because of their evil nukes, the EU has a built in advantage in punishing the competition's fossil fuel use. Russia actually had windfall profits coming by getting credit for their vast open spaces and selling those credits. While India and China, though signatories, were exempted from complying at all and flood the world with unrestrained pollution! Meanwhile the penalties imposed on us would be disastrous for our economy. Sadly, some here see that as a good thing. We can't get agreement that GW as a long term phenomenon exists for sure, whether it really is harmful, whether mankind is a major contributor, and whether we can actually do anything about it. But we should commit economic hiri kiri because it might do some good to stop something that might be a problem. Does this sound like scientific rigor and wise leadership, or pap coming from one of the last refuges of Communism, Marxist environmentalism? These are the same guys who won't allow nukes to be built or windmills on Nantucket. Lastly, there's actually a theory with over a hundred years of measurement which supports GW and maybe, repeat maybe, explains why their computer models don't work so well. GLOBAL CLOUDING. The amount of sunlight reaching the surface has diminished significantly over decades, reflecting off increased cloud cover. The most likely culprits are cloud seeding from jet contrails and third world pollution. Measurements show that the possible effects of GW may be cut in half because of this. But, despite helping their thesis, this information is repressed. Why? Because they so routinely ignore anything now which lowers global temps, and it would illustrate how vulnerable 'catastrophic' GW is to even unintentional intervention. Two pollutions cancelling each other out. Personally, I think the growing shortage of easy to get oil will eventually lead to other sources of energy and solve the CO2 problem naturally, with supply and demand. PS Politically, and who cares anyway, I'm NOT Republican. I'm a Conservative who mostly votes GOP. And I AM ashamed. Because Bush, always a little flighty on domestic issues, has gone insane supporting a stealth immigration bill authored by Ted Kennedy. This is Kyoto times ten. A recipe for us becoming the welfare state to the world. I'm ashamed when for political expediency, my Party abandons their principles and starts acting like Liberal Dems. And the worst is McCain. I'd vote for Hillary before McCain. HER initiatives we can stop in Congress. A Republican President going off the reservation, like now, we might not. But it looks as if the mainstream media is already throwing Hilly under the bus for Al Gore. Apparently she's just not looney enough for the anti-American Left who now run the Democratic Party. But before you start rejoicing, look who's been elected lately. Bush - Conservative (supposedly). Clinton - Moderate Southern New Dem (supposedly). Bush Sr.- No new taxes Republican (supposedly). Reagan - the real Conservative deal. Carter - Moderate Southern Dem. (And if you think he's had a good post Presidency then you need to stop reading the NYTimes right now. North Korea has the atomic bomb thanks to Jimmy Carter. Chavez is in Venezuela because Carter 'oversaw' the travesty that was maybe their last election. Or JC lobbying to continue aid to the murdering Hamas terrorists now running 'Palestine'. This guy has sold his country down the river and been apologist for despots too many times to count. And for what... a lousy Nobel no-prize and pat on the back from the crooks/dictators at the UN. Don't get me started.) Nixon - many things, but not a Lib. Johnson - Southern Dem again. You have to go back to Kennedy to find a liberal Democrat not from the South, and now, he would be more conservative than just about any Republican. Either Hilly or Al have their work cut out for them. Congress- conservative. Senate- at least moderate. State Houses- conservative. Supreme Court- increasingly Conservative. White House- Conservative at times. Face it, Libs CANNOT win at the ballot box, even with a not only biased, but activist, mainstream media pimping for them full time, and even when convicts, illegals, illiterates, and dead folks' votes stuff the ballot box for them. The term Liberal is the worst insult a political opponent can tag you with. But if the GOP abandons their Conservative base, they are commiting national suicide and don't deserve the trust given them.

  • May 31, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    seminar callers? n/t

    by Marduk

  • May 31, 2006, 8:11 p.m. CST

    One more time for the cheap seats

    by bigdickmcgee

    1. Yes, without it, life on earth would be extinct. Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis. They use it to make oxygen. The earth's atmosphere is 0.038% CO2. 2. It does, but to a very small extent. Water and water vapor account for 90% of the "greenhouse" effect; all the other gases, incl. CO2 account for 10% or less. Since the industrial revolution, earth temp. has gone up 0.6 degrees centigrade, about a third of that is attributed to CO2, so about 0.2%. 3. To a very negligible extent; it would have to be a MASSIVE intro of CO2; not gonna happen. 4. Human activity is responsible for 3.4% of all CO2 emissions. The rest are natural. 3.4% of 0.2 degrees (in my head) is about 0.008 degrees centigrade increase due to human activity since the IR. Actually, you really should read that website you bashed. It's quite informative. The numbers are correct (unless you can find more definitve figures).

  • May 31, 2006, 8:45 p.m. CST

    as a closet pyromaniac, here's some more fuel...

    by greyspecter

  • May 31, 2006, 9:18 p.m. CST

    We are now officially in Crazy Town

    by Marduk has been carefully and exhaustively debunked. It is no more a credible source of scientific information than You know, its funny... you guys hate and discredit science until enough party-approved-hack additives get mixed in with your Kool-Aid. Than all of a sudden its Science again. Good luck with that.

  • May 31, 2006, 9:37 p.m. CST


    by bigdickmcgee

    I notice you keep saying that without providing any links or evidence. Nor do you challeneg any of the arguments. I'll give you a simple challenge. Choose one argument from junkscience, spell it out.....and debunk it with references.

  • May 31, 2006, 9:41 p.m. CST

    I hate to say it.

    by cookylamoo

    But people this stupid deserve to die. Let's hope the next super-hurricane takes some of these morons with it.

  • May 31, 2006, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Okey Dokey. I take you trust Fox News?

    by Marduk

    In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy has received thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company since the early nineties, and that NGOs controlled by Milloy have received large payments from ExxonMobil. A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." The payments are seen as another example of "pundit payola."

  • May 31, 2006, 9:55 p.m. CST


    by Marduk

    In 2000, Milloy claimed that between 1961 and 1990, the CDC could not link any cancer clusters with environmental causes. Milloy's statement is misleading, as the CDC has linked cancer clusters with environmental causes and they are not the only agency to do so. In fact, work-related cancer clusters are well documented and the linkages between occupational exposures and disease are sound.

  • May 31, 2006, 10 p.m. CST


    by Marduk

    In 1993, Milloy dismissed an EPA report linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published a similar study in 1997, Milloy said, "it remains a joke today." When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she, "...must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

  • May 31, 2006, 10:06 p.m. CST


    by Marduk

    Really, its not you, its me. Now go get your SHINEBOX.

  • May 31, 2006, 10:22 p.m. CST

    this is why liberals will never win. Anything.

    by bigdickmcgee

    I said debunk the site's ARGUMENTS against global warming, not attack some guy's MOTIVES by claiming that he took money from her or there. Don't you know the difference? Are you so intellectually retarded that you can't tell a real argument from an ad hominum attack? The site contains facts and logic to challenge the global warming alarmists. You made a personal ad hominum attack on some guy you claim supports the site. I ask you again, are you really that dumb?

  • May 31, 2006, 10:29 p.m. CST

    here's what the site says about human CO2 contributions

    by bigdickmcgee

    "But we're responsible for all the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect? Gracious no! Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here). Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere," "disappearing" into sinks as yet undetermined. Humans' total accumulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere -- we're simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here)."----------I look forward to your refutation.

  • May 31, 2006, 10:40 p.m. CST

    hey Marduk, I think I just made you EAT my shinebox

    by bigdickmcgee

  • May 31, 2006, 11:03 p.m. CST

    It is about the Methane

    by Saluki

    I've seen the concentrations of CO2 go from 22% to 31% in some studies, but it is actually about the methane emissions. That is where we are edging 2/1 over nature. Our CO2 is concentrating more, and our methane creation is just unreal. Saying we account for 25% of greenhouse gases also doesn't help your point. That will rise temperatures up and up to cause the deadly storms we have seen. Try understanding the topic at hand before going on copy and pasting sprees, please.

  • May 31, 2006, 11:31 p.m. CST


    by bigdickmcgee

    We don't account for 25% of greenhouse gases. I never said it and I don't knwo where you got it. 70% of the "greenhouse" effect is due to water vapor in the air. 20% due to clouds. So 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to water in the atmosphere. Some say 95%. That means all other gases, including CO2, account for less than 10%. CO2 is a fraction of the 10%. And human emmissions are a fraction of the CO2. If you want to make a CO2 argument, then here are the questions 1 - How much of global warming is due to the "greenhouse" effect? 2 - how much of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide? 3 - how much of carbon dioxide is due to humans burning fossil fuels 4 - therefore, how much of global warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuels?

  • June 1, 2006, 12:30 a.m. CST

    All natural goodness

    by Vynson

    "The rest is natural?" It's all natural. Please try to recall that man is, at the end of the day, one more animal, very much a part of nature. Why is it when a bear shits in the woods, it's natural, but if the Pope does, he's polluting.

  • June 1, 2006, 12:58 a.m. CST

    When the pope shits, it's not pollution...

    by bigdickmcgee

    It's holy shit.

  • June 1, 2006, 3:58 a.m. CST

    actually, the content of junkscience has been refuted..

    by Lord Asriel

    check my fourth or fifth post. Anyway thanks bigdick for your answer, and I happen to agree that humans make a qualititative difference to CO2 levels rather more than quantitative one. Thing is, before the industrial revolution there was a natural balance, obviously it changed over long periods of time but because it was naturally occuring there was an opposing reaction to it. Since we have started burning mass amounts of fossil fuels, putting CFC's into the atmosphere etc etc then we have destroyed the natural balance making it much harder for the earth to counterract what's going on. Now perhaps the earth will fix itself, but that isn't the point. The point is that since we, amongst other things, are without doubt contributing to a gas that heats the earth it is a very sensible decision to look at ways to curb our Co2 production. And like Gore and others say it's small changes that wouldn't affect lifestyle very much, Such as taking your car for a tune up, inflating the tyres, buying energy saving lightbulbs turning your TV off not leaving it on standby overnight. Yes there are people on the pro GW side with political agendas but not the majority, is Sir David Attenborough a marxist??? Hardly. But there are also people on the other side with political agendas and the issue is that I believe most scientist who say anthropogenic GW is a total myth happen to work or are funded by Oil companies and right wing thinktanks. Yes that happens on the pro GW side as well but the vast majority of scientists are not funded by marxist cabals or whatever nonsense some people have been spouting here. Take the british government, hardly a marxist state and yet Blair is very concerned with climate change top government scientist agree that man made warming is a big problem that is an inconvenient trust for Blair he'd have a much easier life ignoring the 932 (or thereabouts) studies which provide evidence for it happening. And finally, seriously, stop quoting, I'm sure you'd take no notice of figures or studies from greenpeace so leave off the obviously partisan stuff, especially as it lies about being non-partisan, it just ruins your credibility.

  • June 1, 2006, 4:56 a.m. CST

    It's tiny url time people.

    by Lord Asriel .... .... .... .... I'd pay particualr attention to the first two if you are a skeptic. If you aren't swayed slightly or just willing to have an openmind and study some more after those, then congratualtions you belong to that great tradition of beligerent idiots.

  • June 1, 2006, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Does Al Gore own a hybrid?

    by DoobyDoo

    Does he ride public transportation regularly? Is his house converted to solar and wind power? Does he travel cross-country in a bus fueled with BioWillie 20? If not, then he's doing very little to actually lower his personal greenhouse gas emmissions and therefore he's a hypocrite! Leo annoys me, but at least he tries to practice what he preaches.

  • June 1, 2006, 11:16 a.m. CST

    You know what's solve the whole scuzzy mess?

    by Roguewriter

    A good old-fashioned zombie apocalypse. Seriously. I'd trade in all the remaining seasons of LOST and all the future geektastic cinema offerings and all you loony bastidges in a heartbeat for one good, planet-decimating zombie apocalypse. That would REALLY get things back in balance... Til the unpiloted nuclear reactors all melted down anyway. Dammit. Stupid dose of reality!

  • June 1, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Giant Robots Cause Global Warming


    But are too cool for us ever to give up. Fotunately, the Giant Robots can build Giant Walls to protects us from the rising oceans, and fan us all with Giant Fans to help keep us cool. All hail the Giant Robots! Plus, if this movie doesn't talk about the Giant Robots, it's an environmentally unfriendly waste of celluloid.

  • June 2, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    bigdickmcgee.... you ignorant slut

    by Marduk

    Yes, rather than cut and paste cherry-picked exerpts from the 10 zillion or so on-line documents that CONTRADICT your view(which any 7th grader could do), I chose to factually discredit your drool-soaked baby blanket of a source. But hey, by avoiding such an exchange, I actually saved you the trouble of eventually calling me an "anti-growth moonbat tree-hugger enviro-whacko" or some such. No ad hominums in OUR house.

  • June 2, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST


    by Marduk

    I favor the zombie apocalypse option. It passes the smell test and doesn't come across as a wedge issue. I think the grass-roots "more brains" voters would get firmly behind this.

  • June 2, 2006, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Oh yeah....

    by Marduk

    Then - "Choose one argument from junkscience, spell it out.....and debunk it with references." Now - "I said debunk the site's ARGUMENTS against global warming, not attack some guy's MOTIVES by claiming that he took money from her or there. Don't you know the difference?" Sure I do.

  • June 17, 2006, 8:28 a.m. CST

    File this movie under the "oops" category, folks

    by HillaryLovesMe Oops!

  • Nov. 27, 2006, 3:22 p.m. CST


    by Bug Doc

    Just saw this on DVD. I am a scientist, republican, and fairly closed minded on the impact the US has on the overall CO2 issue. However, I loved this documentary and am saddened that more folks have not been renting this one at Blockbuster.

  • Nov. 27, 2006, 3:24 p.m. CST


    by Bug Doc

    Great review. Just saw this on DVD. Liked it very much from a fellow Republican.