Slim

Absolutely unnecessary post. Keystone and dre have many solid points, and if you aren't going to address them, then don't post drivel like this.

Phenomenal. This is an enlightening and awesome video on addiction. Thanks for posting.

The latest one, I believe.

Heh, got 'poo poo'd'. I'm going to use that phrase in my day-to-day life, I think. Anyway, while you were jumped on pretty severely for the 'tree-planting' idea, I think that was only in the context of using it as a primary method of reducing CO2. In that sense reforestation isn't really feasible, simply due to the massive scale involved to make a difference. A better solution would be taking steps to eliminate and reduce current sources of major emitters (coal power being the primary) and dealing with reforestation at a later date.

I believe just Ontario and Quebec.

GostHacked: What wyly stated above I agree with, but I'll try and add to it a bit. Absolutely. There is no 'silver bullet' to solve our problems with CO2, pollution, fossil fuel dependence and so on... but there's still quite a few possibilities and options available. The first big move, I think, is to start diversifying our energy production. In some regions, wind/solar are feasible. In others, large-scale geothermal generation plants could be attractive. Converting coal power plants to natural gas... Switching everything over to alternative energy is not going to be a quick (or necessarily easy) process. But it is possible. The political will just needs to be there. I get that concern. It is understandable and valid. But there is significant changes in the works already around the world, we just don't really feel it here in North America because the US and Canada have been slow to adapt. There are lots of reasons for that, I think; it's really a different way of thinking, trying to balance CO2 emissions with energy needs. Maybe Europe has had an easier time because gas was always more expensive? And there is big-time resistance from the fossil fuel lobby, which wields considerable political power, especially in the States.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I'd like to think that it's at least possible to have an intelligent or at least reasonable debate on here, without the zero-effort thoughtless accusations and pigeon-holing that seems to arise any time there's a dispute. Maybe I'm naive to think it can happen differently, but hey, you never know.

Fer cryin' out loud, can we at least attempt to keep this civil and intelligent? Spouting stuff like this does NOT help your case, and the discussion is worse off for it. Just reduces the dialogue to the same level of banality you get from the talking head 'pundits' you see in the extremes of the media. Ugh. Just had to let that out. Any, back on topic, (sorta) the Economist had a brief article about reconciling Sharia law (which is a pretty blanket term) with traditional western laws. Anyone else see it?

I just want to address this 'global cooling' thing real quick. Okay, you're trying to equate the global cooling issue from the past to the global warming issue of today. So was there a scientific consensus on global cooling back then? If there was a consensus (rather, a consensus on the same scale as the GW consensus) and the global cooling theory turned out to be false (or exaggerated) then you have a point. From what I've read, there was no consensus, only extensive media coverage which exaggerated the dangers, while there was growing belief that GHGs were going to cause global warming. This is all pretty much summed up in the wiki page for global cooling. So the global cooling scare was false. It has no bearing on this current issue.

Er... what? I'm beginning to think this is going nowhere. Which is, sadly, what usually happens when the Israeli/Palestinian conflict comes up.

You know, that would be a very interesting study to do: compare the lifestyles of the rich in two seperate countries. One with the higher income tax rate, the other with low tax. Monitor their purchases, travel, luxury items etc etc etc. Then work out home much money was returned to the state coffers. Would it be comparable? Anyone heard of such a study taken place yet? Or should I be getting in line for a juicy research grant?

I hadn't heard of Hansen's 'fee and dividend' theory before... sounds interesting. I'm going to look at it some more tonight if I get a chance. Thanks for the link, waldo. It would be nice to see suggestions like this up for discussion more often.

Well that's a little disconcerting. I try to password my wireless, but wheneve I reset my router (which is often) it loses the password again and becomes unsecure. Hooray.

Well, so much for civilised discussion. Thanks for implying that I want Jews to be harmed. Real classy.

I'll have to take your word on this, because I have very little knowledge of Jewish history in that sense, although it flies in the face of common sense for Jews to always 'turn the other cheek', so to speak. In any case, I did a quick search of Jewish resistance in wiki, and they didn't always act so bookishly! The sad fact is that long-term Jewish security is being damaged by their current policies. By refusing to make any earnest attempts to meet a peaceful resolution with the Palestinians, they only alienate themselves in the region. Which, in the end, will cause much more grief for everyone. I do not envy Israel and its children.

You sure they didn't? You think all the Jews that were massacred, ghettoized (not sure if that's a word), marginalized and pushed around never fought back? Granted, I'm not an expert in Jewish history, but I'd have a hard time believing they took all that abuse lying down. I'd bet good money they resisted violently in some cases. Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. What were you getting at?

Heh, arrogant snot, eh. Well I reckon that's a matter of opinion, though I don't doubt he has an ego (as all politicians do!) I did a quick look on wikipedia and it seems that Gore does indeed use a bunch of energy for his huge house (being rich does have its perks) in the area of 17,768 kWh per month, more than ten TIMES the average American household uses in a year. But, again, supposedly it's all coming from 'green' power sources. Regardless, none of that refutes his arguments. All it proves is that he's rich. Big shocker. If I was rich, I'd have a huge house, too. But you can't expect personal attacks to undermine his positions on AGW mitigation. If he was running around telling folks they need to live in tiny houses regardless of income, THEN you'd have a point. Granted, he has argued for people to conserve energy, and having a huge house kinda flies in the face of that... but at least he's using renewable energy and buying carbon offsets. Anyway, all this is beside the point: AGW is a problem that we need to seriously discuss, and hopefully find logical and practical solutions. That, I think, is what Gore is admired for: bringing the debate to the mainstream for a lot of people.

I don't know what these 'Solomon' publications are. Care to link me to them? I couldn't find anything on Google. Anyway, you seem to be accepting the fact that the small amount of (credible) resistance to the established theory of AGW does not discredit the whole of the scientific consesus on the matter. And I agree with you there. Whether AGW is real or not is no longer up for debate. Okay, you're implying here that there is the potential for some massive global scientific/political conspiracy involving literally thousands upon thousands of politicians and scientists. Sure, it's a possibility. But so damn remote that it's not worth considering. On a side note, why do people hate Gore so much? Okay, I'll reiterate what I said previously: of course waldo 'cut and pastes' arguments. He has to in order to back up his claims or else we would jump all over him for making baseless arguments. And again you're alluding to people over-stating the effects of AGW for personal gain. I'm not sure what evidence you have to back this up... especially in the US, there aren't a whole lot of politicians that have thrown their hat in with the AGW-crowd. If what you say is correct, we should have a whole host of politicians standing in line to push the 'Green Agenda'. But I'm just not seeing it, not on the scale you're implying. Now, for the record, I'm not denying that there are individuals that are jumping on the Green bandwagon solely to make a quick buck. I'm sure there are, and there will likely be more. But that's hardly unique to this particular issue, nor does it mean we should be dismissing AGW because of those crooked few. Okay, you're starting to lose me here. Referencing the Ice-Age theory of the 70s is not helping your cause. As Hardner said earlier, it's a dead argument. And it has no impact here. And I don't have any idea what your first two sentences even mean. You'll have to elaborate on the percentages of being right. Your post does not support this conclusion. And there has been lots of proper debate about what to do about AGW elsewhere in the forums. Without the need to make bizarre statements like this:

I should clarify. In terms of violent resistance, it is the logical choice for them.

Alright, either you're adopting a hilariously well-acted persona (MLW's version of Stephen Colbert?) or just one dedicated troll. Either way... I can't help but give ya credit.

He never once said it's okay to kill anyone. The point that dre is trying to get across (if he forgives me for stepping in), is of course Palestinian resistance will manifest in the form of 'terrorism' and guerrilla tactics. That's the only logical option available to them. And really, it's working, by drawing international attention to the issue.

Well of course he's going to cite sources, guys. If he didn't, you would all just dismiss him for having nothing to back up his claims. And really, none of us are climate scientists, so we HAVE to rely on studies done by experts. That's what waldo's doing. And doing it very, very well. I have yet to see any of his points properly refuted.

Oh I know. I find myself looking for waldo's posts just to see him ream the crap out of people.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Well done. Anyway, I'm going to assume there's going to be no further useful discussion in this topic?

But in 2002 the IAEI was allowed back in for examination of Iraq's weapons program, and found nothing. If everyone would have listened to them and NOT the Bush administration, things would have (hopefully) gone differently. There was no logical reason (using the WMD argument) to invade. But of course it was never really about WMDs. Absolutely 100% agree here. It's a shame that the West doesn't act a lot more logical about this issue (which is, in the big scheme of things, pretty damn minor).