Quote:Well in the case of extremely long lived trees like redwoods Id disagree. Otherwise minus the size of trees and the whole political talking point issue and the number of random species that managed to live only there, in some cases (this can be real or imagined.). As I mentioned before... its a perception thing. Like you know using fear to get people to believe a certain group has the one answer to saving their life from the wrath of Nature/God/Man.
There's no difference between old growth forest and new growth, kids. None at all.
I know you guys (Dark Rev and friends) have probably forgotten, but I made a statement of intention in my first post. This thread was made to do two things discuss the Ozone holes and discuss how the MGW movement ate the political movement that was the Ozone Holes lobby of terror. In order to establish that such a thing was happened I needed to establish a few things as a background.
The first was that the Ozone Holes were doing things that got ignored, in this case continuing to enlarge. This I did in my first post. Next I needed to establish that the MGW movement had enough power to steamroll the Ozone Hole movement, which is what Ive been doing in this thread for a while now. Basically, Ive been using Dark Rev and Co to demonstrate that. I know full well that it is basically pointless to argue with them (online this is more true) as they wont believe me unless I manage to get video tape of the movement heads laughing about what they got their minions to believe this time and that is iffy.
So Ive been dropping random lines to set off the macros of their politics. That is the whole thing with the CFC replacement on the shuttles (note the statement I dropped it in doesnt require it being mentioned). I tested it on the MGW thread then reused it here. Most recently I invoked two names that they have strong attachments to: Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. You can see the results for yourself.
The fun thing about Rush is that so many in the media Loath him. This means they obsessively track whatever he says looking for a weak point, which makes for excellent error checking. If he says anything close to wrong the media will jump all over it. Though theyll go after random angels on the story or use it as a jumping point for a related story. Also, he drives left leaning people into fits, as seen above.
I used the caller (wish she dropped a city/school name myself) as a jump point, because it let me invoke Al Gores latest science fiction movie. Now I fully realize that that isnt a Dark Rev friendly term however much people want to call it a documentary, its been poked full of holes by qualified people (though it took a while to hit the mainstream media). I only need one point of issue for my purposes, so lets go with the 20 foot rise in sea levels.
This 20 foot rise is something that has been disputed in Congress when Gore testified there as a MGW expert. This 20 sea level rise comes from a discredited UN report one that a redo of the study dropped the sea level rise based on predictions down to 23 inches that is a 10x modifier of distortion. Using a figure that distorted things by that much is my simple discrediting of An Inconvenient Truth. Also it fits nicely into my point about both demonstrating apocalyptic fear mongering and MGW eating the funding for high profile funding being diverted.
Looking at the counter of my description of Al Gore I note a few fun and convenient things. First, when I talk about the Kayak Photo-op story I got a retort article, from Rollingstone. Now I mentioned that was the best article I could find on the story, because it contained news of the photo-op (it was a bit hard to get a search that worked at all for that story.). I know you guys want it to be about the cash value of the water, but for me its not. Rollingstone uses the line, "Nobody from the Gore campaign asked for the water to be released.." Of course this means no one on the campaign staff, not any kind of group associated with Gore (we call these 527s now). He still managed to get the time table altered for his staged photo-op. However, the article also lays out the case that Gore lost the election because of negative media coverage... which is why I stopped believing in that source was neutral and unbiased. In order for the argument to work Bush has to have gotten positive coverage from the same groups... Which if you believe you must be avoiding the press entirely, for near a decade now.
Dark Rev countered my bit on the 2000 election, specifically the bit on what the Supreme court decision by hurling insults and denying what I said was true, by helpfully proving a link the decision. What I said works from the prospective of the time out and the lawsuit specifics. So he didnt actually counter my comment. I should note here the recount was eventually done in a hoard of ways by a hoard different types of people from all across the political spectrum Gore never won a recount regardless of method as far as I know I could get into the machines and chads, but its not useful here.
So I guess that gets us to the connection between Captain Planet and Al Gores scifi movies. Yes, movies plural. I do remember the tragically comic environmental horror movie called, The Day After Tomorrow. When it was declared a trainwreck, we hit a lull, then 'An Inconvenient Truth'.... which is contrary to your statement, not excepted as the truth by scientists in general... several have poked major holes in it. Which I know Rev and Co'll comment with some 'majority rules' comments with a fancy, incorrect title (we covered that issue earlier in the thread). Lots of scientists disagree with several parts of it, but they don't matter as they aren't in your favored group.
Quote:
Actually, you were told that if you couldn't find backing by a reputable and unbiased group of scientists, your opinion is worth jack because you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:Purpose. That is the connection. Both are designed to scare people into following the environmentalist agenda. The cartoon aspect is a matter of target age group. If your defense is you can't see the point, because one is animated and aimed at kids and the other is designed to influence adults, then you have a blind spot. I remember the tragic, unintentional comedy called, 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Which was an attempt to scare people by showing them the repercussions of defiling nature, as an action movie... by showing them the edge of possible to outright stupidly wrong/impossible effects of the Earth ridding itself of global warming. This was previous Al Gore endorsed, global warming movie.
I'm not certain why you compared a cartoon of an ecological theme to a documentary that is supported by scientific evidence. I think it is perhaps because you, personally, are a cartoon.
As for the issue of Al Gore and the magic name changing indulgences I can't even understand how you managed to get so far off track without it being intentional. I never said anything about him advertising it for industry (that was Kyoto Protocols), he does it on a personal level. He pays for the pollution he personally creates through his lifestyle. He buys indulgences for what his house and personal lifestyle do to create pollution... he testified in front of Congress as a global Warming expert... and when asked if he would live like he was insisting everyone else should he said he Live a carbon neutral lifestyle. With is environmentalist tenchobabble for he buys pollution indulgences... to offset his lifestyle by spending cash. He doesn't actually stop what he is doing at all... he just pays for indulgences.
Quote:Um no... I believe that if its my job to maintain the US's spaceships, then I would maintain the shuttles I'm sick of seeing, 'The shuttle blew up because we didn't do routine maintenance X' every few years. Its not a matter of design flaws that get shuttles, it them not doing required maintenance on them. Which there own reports keep saying after every resent shuttle explosion. They do a great job of keeping up with the latest on the Ozone Layer. But are doing less well on the shuttle maintenance.
Tell me, Necratoid - do YOU think you could build a rocketship better than a degreed engineer who's worked on them at NASA can? If so, why exactly? If not, why do you feel you're qualified to argue with thousands of similarly experienced and qualified scientists about climate change?
So that is a good chunk of the explanation (with helpful demonstrations of the kind of people involved in the movement). I think Ive proven the MGW group has the drive and momentum (till the next eco-crisis fad, remember the save the rainforest movement that went away?) to take away politically motivated funding from the Ozone Hole movement.. This apparently made things more manageable and less panic driven into Ozone Holes research. So it is not really a bad thing, but can anyone, excluding the MGW cult people think of any gaps they wish filled in this?