Good work. Keep it up….

enlightened, common-sense environmentalist

An oxymoronic phrase, if ever I heard one.

Earth is an open-air spaceship

You must be a Kucinich supporter.

alter it needlessly by destroying trees

Who decides which sort of “destruction” is needless? You?

But believing that he and his cohorts invalidate the issue

I believe that a lack of scientific evidence and a concerted effort to stifle opposition invalidates the issue. Any enlighted, common-sense person would agree.

it’s close enough it could be true..

during a concert, he asked for complete silence and the slowly started to clap his hands.

“Every time I clap my hands, a child dies in Africa.”

someone in the crowd shouts out, “Well f@#$ing stop clapping then.”

I said Greenlibrarian instead of libertarian, probably because I was seeing red but the condescension just put me over the top.

If it’s any help, I almost typed GreenLibrarian too.

I thought you had misread GL’s post as saying that plants produced CO2 and used O2. I didn’t realize you were holding his/her feet to the fire on a different point. I don’t think what GL said merited being called a fool. GL does have a point that if we are (and we apparently are) producing more CO2 than the plant life on the planet can process. . .well, then there is indeed a problem.

Not an as-Gore-would-have-us-believe sensationalist problem, but a problem nonetheless.

And keep in mind, GL didn’t call you a fool or nitwit. You were the one name-calling. It’s not helpful.

Yes, I know Gore spoke of retreating arctic ice in his speech, but he failed, as usual, to mention the thickening antarctic ice. Also, global temp averages aren’t taking off like the hockey stick chart that was originally used to justify the hysteria.

So, you see, with all the scientists that are finally gaining the backbone necessary to stand up to the elitists like Gore, we see that their alarming predictions are more the stuff of science fiction rather than science fact.

What this means about your “reasonable” position is that if something is ineffective or inaccurate, there is nothing reasonable about it.

On January 25th, 2008 at 1:34 am, greenLibertarian said:

But believing that he and his cohorts invalidate the issue makes you people the nitwits. I know this is probably useless, never argue with people that ‘know’ they are right, but if even one person thinks about the issue objectively for a moment then reading all of the eco-abuse here will have been worthwhile.

Yashmack, I find it curious how you call me out for “mud slinging” but somehow ignore Greenlibertarian. That is OK, as a conservative I am used to being held to a higher standard.

On January 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am, Yashmak said: If you’re referring to post GreenLibertarian wrote immediately prior (#64), he or she didn’t write that plants don’t use CO2, or give off O2. . .so I really don’t know what you’re name calling for. I think maybe it’s you who should do some reading. . .of the posts you’re responding to. When you sling mud, you often get it on yourself.

On January 25th, 2008 at 1:34 am, greenLibertarian said:
Is it really worth the risk to alter it needlessly by destroying trees, discharging enormous amounts of gasses into it that also alter its composition, etc.?

Yes I’m referring to the post above. This blog thread is discussing Al Gore and absolution. That means CARBON CREDITS. Carbon = CO2. CO2 helps plants grow. What other enormous amount of gasses are we emitting that we are discussing here for that matter not discussing. I said Greenlibrarian instead of libertarian, probably because I was seeing red but the condescension just put me over the top.

no meat, since animal flatulence causes global warming

That sounds like a good excuse for a few hamburgers – the more animals we kill and eat the fewer there are to cause global warming!

Here’s the thing and I’ll speak really slow so you can follow it. Plants use CO2 and give off O2. You nitwit. Compare this true fact to what you stated above and go slap yourself for me.

-traveler49

If you’re referring to post GreenLibertarian wrote immediately prior (#64), he or she didn’t write that plants don’t use CO2, or give off O2. . .so I really don’t know what you’re name calling for. I think maybe it’s you who should do some reading. . .of the posts you’re responding to. When you sling mud, you often get it on yourself.

On January 25th, 2008 at 1:34 am, greenLibertarian said:

Is it really worth the risk to alter it needlessly by destroying trees, discharging enormous amounts of gasses into it that also alter its composition, etc.?

Q: Is it really worth the risk to alter it
A: Risk is a component of every activity man undertakes. When these activities include feeding, sheltering and clothing the human race, it’s not unreasonable to accept risk.

Q: needlessly by destroying trees,
A: Who is needlessly destroying trees? The homebuilders who shelter humanity? The farmers who feed humanity? The last I heard, lumberjacking was an occupation, not a recreational sport.

Q: discharging enormous amounts of gasses into it that also alter its composition
A: Every form of life on Earth–and the Earth itself–emits gases that alter the composition of the atmosphere. That’s kind of how we’re built. Try as I might, I can only emit CO2; plants can only emit O2. If I’m wrong, please identify for me any life form, terrestrial or human activity that emits gases in a ratio that corresponds with the Earth’s atmosphere.

Here’s the thing and I’ll speak really slow so you can follow it. Plants use CO2 and give off O2. You nitwit. Compare this true fact to what you stated above and go slap yourself for me.