"lefty environmentalist"

What is wrong with caring for the environment? I really hope you watch the above link, I am curious your take on when we should begin moving to sustainable energy, and when would it be to late?

Check out the documentary, Crude Awakening, not a left wing film by any stretch, many of the worlds leading geologists used in the making of this film, let me know what you think, what you disagree with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sMF1n9EgzU

The reason why I questioned your 100,000 deaths number is because no one really knows, maybe its more, maybe it's a lot less, we don't really know for sure, what we do know with absolute certainty is that the US was a friend of Iraq during the time that many of these deaths occurred, they were friends when Iraq gassed the Curds and when they used gas on the Iranian's, not only did we support Iraq, we sold them the weapons that were eventually used on their own people, you see, in the 80's Saddam was a ruthless dictator, but he was our dictator, and therefore we did nothing to stop his atrocities.

Jump ahead several years, Iraq and Iran both decide they no longer want to trade in US oil dollars but instead they want to transfer currency to the Euro, what affect would this have on the US? If Iraq and Iran were to decide to accept euros only for its oil, then American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets (Japan is the major subsidiser of the US because it holds so many dollar investments). The US on the other hand, being the world's largest oil importer would have to run a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to be achieved at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic supplies of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion, with disastrous consequences. I hope I have given you a bigger picture, and maybe now you have a slightly better understanding of why we went to war in the first place, as well as why we continue to make threats against Iran.

WW2 is not a very good comparison, Iraq was NEVER a threat, unless you consider the implications of loosing our oil dollars.

Lady, lady, lady, you really have no idea,do you? firstly, Canadian oil has always been destine for Asian markets, the only reason they were even looking at ports in Texas is because the natives in Canada would not allow passage west, also British Columbia is protesting shipping from their coastal ports, they don't want an oil disaster along the beautiful BC coast line, but why would I expect you to know this, you get your news from Biggovernment.

Hussein kills 100,000 people? and how many have we killed, is this your justification for unilaterally declaring war then occupying a country for 9+ years, WOW, I guess there are lot more countries out there we should be attacking and occupying then, what a crazy assertion.

How many innocent Iraqis died after Hussein fell from power? Why did we occupy a country for 9 years? why did we build 4 of the largest military bases in the world if all we wanted was to get rid of Saddam? Were we really there to liberate a country?

my bad, I forgot that "just war" meant securing resources, I guess your definition of "sanctity of life" depends on how bad you need cheap oil, right?

Thanks, you answered my question, have a good day, my friend;)

Funny, I have always wondered how so many church going people are always the first to lead a charge into war that kills innocent people by the thousands, men women and children are all victims of war, they are also the first to support the death penalty even though it may result in the death of an innocent wrongly convicted prisoner, I too, am against abortion, I value ALL life, can you say the same?

Do you place a higher value on American interest (oil) than you do on life? If you don't think we go to war over resources, any further discussion would be pointless.

If Romney wants the Republican nomination he will need to be more like Newt, he will need to......

-Leave his first wife for another woman.
-Break the news of his affair to his second wife while she is ill and in the hospital.
-Attack a sitting president for having an affair, while you are having an affair.
-Be seen getting a BJ from another man's wife while his kids are nearby.
-Create so many ethics violations that even the Republican party by overwhelming numbers want you to step down.

You see Mitt, you can no longer rely on just being a vulture capitalist, you need soooooo much more to be today's right wing sweet heart, you can't just be a hypocrite in your business life you have to be one in your personal life as well, I hope you get this message before it is to late , good luck Mitt.

My hero? changing my tune? when have I ever said anything about Gore? I refer to scientists only, I have NEVER seen Gore's film, nor do I ever intend to see it, what exactly do you mean by hypocrite?

Why haven't you provided any scientific reviewed evidence that refutes the scientific models that exist today? why do you keep avoiding the science? You can provide a 100 different theories and if they don't directly refute the widely excepted models, they don't change a thing, are you having a hard time following what I am asking, I don't know how many ways I can ask the question, it appears you really have NO objection to the overwhelming consensus, do I have that right?

If your next post ignores the science of man made climate change I will have to conclude that your objections have NOTHING to do with science and has EVERYTHING to do with ideology.

Have a good remainder of the weekend.

I'm not really sure why you post a video of an ex VP, I certainly don't don't refer to politicians for evidence for or against, I refer to scientists and their findings, period.

Why won't you address the scientific evidence, after all, you are trying to deny scientific consensus, so provide evidence that contradicts the consensus, why are you finding this so hard?

ahhhh bil, you don't have to feel sorry for me for believing in the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Why are so many deniers changing their tune? Do you think it may be due to the fact that they can't dispute the evidence?

"The other is your dogged determination to not let facts get out front of your religiosity.."

???

I'm the one excepting the science, I even except that there may be some truth to your solar science theory, although his theory has difficulty explaining the speed of current changes considering that historical changes have occurred over thousands of years, not a single century, that said, how does that diminish the FACT that 99.9999 % of the climate scientists consensus conclude that increased levels of CO2 is affecting our climate?

I am very happy that even the denier community is now excepting the FACT that the climate is changing, this is clearly a move forward, now we need them to add directly to the debate about man made climate change, if they dispute the finding they should present their finding that directly dispute the evidence, don't you agree, if there is serious disagreement with the evidence, they should provide evidence to back their position?

Why do deniers attack scientists rather than the science, provide testable scientific theories, observations, or evidence that hasn’t already been decisively debunked and that proves to be better than the current theories and hypotheses at explaining what we see happening around us. Not only have deniers failed to do this, the evidence for human-caused climate change has continued to deepen and strengthen for decades. There’s no denying that.

Here are a few of the claims made by deniers, why do so many contradict one another?

• Climate change is not occurring
• The global climate is actually getting colder
• The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response

CLEARLY, there is NO consensus among deniers, and you say that it is I who doesn't understand science, really?