Would you be willing to address the second part of my post? I was familiar with global warming long before I even knew who Al Gore was.

Same here. I remember all the discussion in the 1970s and 1980s of fluorocarbons potentially punching a hole in the ozone layer.

 

Let's be honest ... whatever position Al Gore espouses on anything, there is a cottage industry of Gore-haters that will blast him at every turn.

Same here. I remember all the discussion in the 1970s and 1980s of fluorocarbons potentially punching a hole in the ozone layer.

 

Let's be honest ... whatever position Al Gore espouses on anything, there is a cottage industry of Gore-haters that will blast him at every turn.

 

Westsider, I hate to tell you this. The chlorofluorocarbon issue is separate from the global warming issue. CFCs were found to turn ozone (O3) into breathable oxygen (O2). While having oxygen to breath is a good thing, the loss of ozone creates thin layers or holes through which ultraviolet radiation can permeate. This type of radiation does not raise the temperature, but does vastly increase free radicals that are known to be carcinogens. Here is a link.

 

I do, however, agree with you that some people will disagree with former VP Gore no matter WHAT stance he took, just as some would disagree with ANY decision made by current Pres. Bush.

Every public policy initiative should be subjected to an honest benefit to costs analysis and those of us who are not convinced that global warming is occurring or believe that it is occurring but that man's contribution to it are minimal, do not believe that enough attention is being paid to the cost side of the analysis.

 

Though obviously not pertinent to this thread, the same could be argued about the decision to invade Iraq, given the same uncertainty of accurate infomation and cost effectiveness. :thumb:

Westsider, I hate to tell you this. The chlorofluorocarbon issue is separate from the global warming issue. CFCs were found to turn ozone (O3) into breathable oxygen (O2). While having oxygen to breath is a good thing, the loss of ozone creates thin layers or holes through which ultraviolet radiation can permeate. This type of radiation does not raise the temperature, but does vastly increase free radicals that are known to be carcinogens. Here is a link.

 

I do, however, agree with you that some people will disagree with former VP Gore no matter WHAT stance he took, just as some would disagree with ANY decision made by current Pres. Bush.

I should have said "I also remember the discussion ..."

 

Didn't mean to imply that they are one and the same, although they both involve the issue of man-made materials causing potential environmental problems.

Though obviously not pertinent to this thread, the same could be argued about the decision to invade Iraq, given the same uncertainty of accurate infomation and cost effectiveness. :thumb:

A-freakin'-men ...

Al Gore should hang his head in shame for that scraggily beard he grew, not for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

He was not the most deserving, but I thought the point of the thread was more about how ridiculous the selection process of the Nobel Peace Prize has gotten rather than a discussion on Al Gore's qualifications.

Al Gore should hang his head in shame for that scraggily beard he grew, not for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

I wouldn't disagree with that ... :lol:

I should have said "I also remember the discussion ..."

 

Didn't mean to imply that they are one and the same, although they both involve the issue of man-made materials causing potential environmental problems.

 

Sorry...I might have been quick on the trigger there. This is a common misconception that many of my high school students have, so I am just used to having to separate the two. :thumb:

I should have said "I also remember the discussion ..."

 

Didn't mean to imply that they are one and the same, although they both involve the issue of man-made materials causing potential environmental problems.

Correct me if I am wrong but CFC's actually do destroy the ozone while global warming hasn't been proven to be real.

Correct me if I am wrong but CFC's actually do destroy the ozone while global warming hasn't been proven to be real.

 

Well, no liberal ex-VP has jumped on board promoting it, so I guess it is still true. ( Sorry, just having fun again. Just joking!)

 

Seriously, I haven't heard any evidence to the contrary.

When the big threat was the hole in the ozone layer we we're all going to fry.

 

Now its global warming and we're all going to bake.

 

I wish they'd make up their minds.

When the big threat was the hole in the ozone layer we we're all going to fry.

 

Now its global warming and we're all going to bake.

 

I wish they'd make up their minds.

 

I thought baking was better for your health because it doesn't hold the grease.

How is that different than the approach both sides take to a whole host of issues?

 

And, simply going from what I've seen, the majority of the scientific community is with Gore on the issue. Hasn't even the President admitted that global warming is a real concern?

31,000 American scientists disagree according to this.

Sparky, I'm sure that this thread is comparing Gore and Spelder, not Bush. But you feel the need to bring him up in every thread.

 

 

 

Just like the conservs bring up Gore and Clinton in every other thread. Just trying to keep things "fair and balanced."

Just like the conservs bring up Gore and Clinton in every other thread. Just trying to keep things "fair and balanced."

This thread is not about George Bush, nor is BGP constrained by the Fairness Doctrine. Please stay on topic.