Bin Laden and Al Gore are now two peas in a pod

NWR, when the text is blocked off that usually indicates that it is a direct quote; in this case, from the WSJ and not biased blog bloviation. Here is the same exerpt from the horse's mouth, the WS Journal's own website.Read up on Soros. The profit motive is fine when it comes to to extended personal influence and addition to his own billions, but he is in no way a capitalist free market advocate.I would regard Murdock as more of a centrist than conservative. If you google his name, Wiki says, for example:

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

That comes straight from the opinion pages of the WSJ. It has all of the credibility of a right wing blog. As I said before, it comes from the usual right wing suspects. Oh! So apparently the profit motive doesn't count when the person who holds it happens to disagree with your own extremist right wing ideology.

And the data you cited comes from what more objective source? Certainly not more impartial than mine. Yours did not bother to mention the lucrative position Soros fanagled himself into when he sold the common shares just in time to prophet off of the preferred dividends relative to the loan. Nor did it objectively address the US connection to the loan guarantee. Rather it attributed the whole thing to China.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I am not making any claim, so I don't need to provide any source.You have made a claim which is an accusation against Obama, and the only evidence you can come up with is opinion pieces from right wing ideologues. I still haven't a clue as to why you are even mentioning Soros. As best I can tell, it is only because right wing ideologues hate Soros as much as they hate Obama.Now maybe we should get off this diversion, and go back to discussing the topic of the OP (that is, if there is any actual content worth debating in the OP).

Thanks for the reply, J10:10.Let's look a little further at your reference links you provided. Link #1 @ Wikipedia:OK, so we see that most, if not all, of the earth's naturally formed carbon seems to be in a sort of equilibrium with processes which remove that carbon from the atmosphere. So what do you suppose happens to the other 8 billion metric tons of non-anthropogenic carbon (human produced) each year? Clearly, if our natural sinks can't accomodate it, it'll remain in the atmosphere. Now, I admit the jury is still out on exactly what it's doing up there, but I tend to lean toward the IIPC's findings over the years, although you'll probably deem them bunk, as they shared part of Al Gore's Peace Prize. (insert ad hominem attack here) Like I said before, even if you're not one of the brazenly ignorant folk who ignores sound science in favor of a politically biased opinion (aka you're on the fence), what could possibly stop you from at least trying to decrease those pollutants which are supposedly increasing the temperature on our planet? Oh and also, according to your link: Emphasis mine. Would you care to link me to a different website, one maybe a little more biased to your personal tastes?On to Link #2Aside from the fact that this is really nothing more than a personal blog and thus can't really be considered impartial (or verifiable, for that matter), we find that the pertinent data is confined to the US only. So, since 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record in the US, then 1934 is the hottest year on record everywhere on earth. Good science, that. (Although it was interesting that the infamous temp. testing site was in Detroit Lakes, MN (!). Nothing like bringing a "conspiracy" close to home )So thanks but no thanks for the reading entertainment. Watching you right-wingers, hoodwinked by the likes of Limbaugh and Faux News etc., tap dance yourselves into an environmental corner is funny stuff!! Have a good one. Edited by Apothecus, : speelign

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Thought I'd new this one up.

There is nothing wrong with cleaning the environment. We should seek to reduce emissions. Even supposing it isn't linked to ozone depletion, we're still breathing in smog which no one would say is good for us.The problem that I personally have with the whole movement is that for many it has all the characteristics of a religion and has been used as a tool for extortion. The demagogues of this religion refer to the "fence sitters" as apostates and infidels (even if they don't use that terminology, that's the allusion). The hysteria is grossly exaggerated which generate unethical profits through panic.The whole "carbon credit" scam is EXACTLY like tithing in any religion. You feel bad about your sins (the cleansing of one's conscience of their eco-sins in this instance) and "offset your emissions."The prophet (profit) Al Gore is the ring leader in this circus.Now, yes, there are ignorant people who only go against it because their party or affiliations do not endorse it. That is just as stupid. But that very much goes BOTH ways.And because it has become so politicised, I can't trust anyone just yet. It's my opinion that not sitting on the fence to some degree and not being an open-minded skeptic is doing the greatest disservice since there is no smoking gun in either direction. The debate is open, the research is still in effect, and until solid, unbiased evidence is presented, I will remain an open-minded skeptic.And no, this is not an invitation for everyone on EvC to start posting bar graphs. Save your bandwidth and spare me the song and dance.I'm just making a statement here about what I see and why I am not pro or con anthropogenic global warming. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This is pretty much my position these days, as well. Like I said, the jury's still out on climate change: whether it exists and if it does exist, why? I just tend to err on the side of what seems to be best for our earth at this point in time. I'm no nut job worrying about decreasing my carbon footprint by installing solar panels in my front yard, but I recycle what I can and compost my kitchen garbage. But I agree that it's gone from a "movement" to an "industry" faster than I think anyone expected it could happen. I heartily enjoy poking holes in either side, especially when confronted by a ridiculous radical like J10:10 and his bullshit.Have a good one.

Hi Apothecus, It's hard to argue with rising sea levels permanently flooding land areas that were cultivated in the recent past.India's Sacred Sagar Island Is Shrinking Away : NPR

quote:

---

Varun Pyke has come to the edge of the Indian island where he has spent all 50 years of his life, to recount the story of the riches that he has now lost.

​

He gloomily jabs a finger out toward the water, pointing well beyond the gray waves lapping on the shores of the long, wide beach on which he is standing.

​

A mile or two out, there lies what used to be his farm, explains Pyke, a wiry man in a vest and wraparound "lunghi."

​

He says he had 5 acres, all now part of the seabed.

​

Rising water levels compelled Pyke to move inland; now he has only 2 acres to farm, barely enough to survive.

​

Pyke lives on Sagar Island, off the east coast of India. It is part of the Sundarbans, a giant low-lying archipelago that straddles India and Bangladesh, fanning out into the Bay of Bengal.

---

I'd say it is pretty well established that climate change is a fact.There is also little doubt in my mind that human behavior from the beginning of agriculture (~10,000 bce) has contributed to this, accelerating as the production of pollution has increased.Enjoy.

---

Thanks for the reply RAZD.I don't think I can offer much in the way of an argument; I agree there are many, many reasons why we should accept that worldwide temps (and water levels) are currently on the rise. My current position can be seen in Message 40. I lean substantially toward your opinion, though I also believe much work needs be done toward proving that a natural cycle of the earth's climate doesn't share at least part of the blame for rising temperatures. But just because I may (somewhat) qualify as a fence-sitter does not mean I'll sit back on my laurels like some climate change hoax proponents would have me do, when I can at least try to effect some change.But then, you know, what do you think would happen should the world's population somehow change enough of our habits and lifestyles to reverse the warming trend? The global warming deniers would then deny that there was ever a problem at all, that the climate trend reversed itself on its own. We seem to be damned if we do, damned if we don't.In the meantime, though, I'm personally going to do my darndest to prevent the worst from happening, even as the ignorant bury their heads in the sand and wait for it to all be over.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hi again Apothecus, I think it does, but that this is really irrelevant to the question of whether or not we want to live in a warmed up flooded world with different weather patterns (what happens to northern climate if the jet stream changes substantially?), and what can we do to accommodate some inevitable change? IMH(ysa)O the biggest change we could make would be to world population, and it may be that local extinctions will go a long way to that answer. I'm looking to see some speciation events as well as mass extinctions. Could be interesting times (as the old Chinese curse has it).Enjoy.

---

As I see it, it's only politicised for the same reason that evolution is "controversial."Evidence overwhelmingly supports the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The "controversy" is generated by those with a vested interest in the current petroleum-based economy, and is eaten up by right-wing dupes who like to assert the sort of nonsense that j10:10 spewed out in the OP.I also suspect that there's a nice big helping of just plain meanness motivating the deniers, case in point being ANWR. Oil producers know that, compared to current need, there's only a negligible amount of oil to be had there in one of the very last few untrampled places on Earth. They just want to "drill, baby, drill" as a way of saying FUCK YOU to the people who actually care about this planet.If you want to know where the truth is, follow the money - explain to me again how the hippies are going to become socialist billionaires by redistributing all the Christian SUV owners' hard-earned money to third world Muslim abortionists? - and pay attention to who's lying. Who do you really think has been lying?

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

John is likely fed propaganda from the pulpit and his favorite news source which tells him what he wants to hear rather than the way it actually is, so there's little chance of objectivity there.Finding parallels between bin Laden and Al Gore is absurd. Nuff said there.It's tough though. I mean, the climate is not something that should be politicized and yet it is. A sad state of affairs my friend.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I disagree that there is overwhelming evidence on either side of the aisle.There seems to be evidence of suppression on the right end of the spectrum and exaggeration on the left side of the spectrum. Exactly the problem. Billions of dollars exist in the cottage industry of oil. The new enterprise these days is billions of dollars generated from the ecological market.Both sides have vested interests, which further clouds judgment. Both sides.There are also people on both sides that are used as pawns. People like you or I have nothing to gain monetarily from this, yet both sides want your support to further the cause. Certainly not all people are oil barons or eco-terrorists. But both want us to side with their brand of ideology.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I was driving to my mother-in-law's house early this month (maybe late last month, I can't remember the date). She lives on a small lake (lake Como, in between Delavan and Lake Geneva). The deepest point in the lake is maybe 15 feet. we actually go out past the weed beds in the summer and toss the football (that's about a third of the way in). There was a sign up for the annual ice-fishing tournemant. I chuckled because the lake was thawed out!. Here it is, end of January, early February, and this little ass lake is thawed out. The weather is JUST fine!Luckily, the lake froze over in time for the tourney: well enough for planes, trucks, four-wheelers and snowmobiles to drive on.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan