We have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effects of Live Earth...

Read it for yourself...this whole concert to save the planet did more damage than it did good...which go figure, Al Gore had something to do with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701201_pf.html

 

I planted one yesterday only 99999 to go, but atleast I'm trying

 

I been thinking about this carbon credit thing. I guess I can buy carbon credits from Al Gore's company to offset the carbon I release to the atmosphere but that doesn't replace all the fossil fuel burned.

I think we need to bury a couple million dinosaurs so they can start turning into Regular Unleaded.

 

Im not a hippie but if everyone planted a tree we would have an extra tree for each person on earth there is.

 

I think that every people must cooperate to save mother earth...unless if every people tried too...

 

100k isn't a lot that's like 0.000000000000001 per person on earth (okay, I didn't do the exact # but you get the point.)

 

I think idiots need to wake up and realize that global warming is a myth invented to make some people rich...

 

It is freaking hot in New York now. I don't mind they get rich..but please, i will die if this weather get worse

 

Wanna come at shop at my new carbon credits store

ONLY -- $10 per kg ~ bulk discounts apply ... online soon

 

Two things, to D16, and to others who agree with this position:

Firstly, I obviously totally disagree with your statement quoted above. But, ignoring that, what if "we're" right and "you" are wrong? Isn't this much like saying "some have said cigarettes can lead to cancer and an ineluctably agonizing death. They're full of crap, so I'm going to keep smoking." Given that "those" who indicate cancer's risk include such a horrible end as part of the habit, doesn't prudence dictate at least hedging your bets? Given that the stakes promulgated by the global warming community include the end of life, as we know it, doesn't it also dictate a similar prudence?

Secondly, wholesale dismissing the heavy majority universe of evidence and scientific opinion indicating an anthropogenic global warming as emanating from a "bunch of wackos" is a religious position, in my mind. It is no different than subscribing to the conspiracy theories of AGS's troubled universe: "I know all orthodox sources point to Bin Laden is a satanic throwback, but don't you see, it's all being controlled by the Illuminati."

 

keep up the good work..........

 

Before planting trees steps should be taken to stop cutting of trees. This will be the best beginning of a holy work.

 

I think idiots need to wake up and stop calling those who follow logic and scientific facts idiots. If it were a myth as you say, and it could be, the outcome of this would be people being more friendly to the environment, reducing their carbon emissions, and saving energy (and money) by simply not doing what they don't need to do.

All the above is good.

If it weren't a myth, and people still followed the opinion of people like you, there would be only one outcome: Billions getting messed up, losing their homes, and the whole world having to suffer the horrible consequences.

An idiot would ignore all the signals, all the facts, and the big possibility that this can happen and run around calling those who take action idiots. A smart one would take action, reduce his waste and energy spending, and save himself and the others from a horrible end.

So, if you are not going to do anything, at least don't call those whose position is way more reasonable than yours idiots. It's just not right.

 

Bushland Bushland Uber Alles, U-ber Alles in Dem Welt!

 

Woo hoo!! I got a good one started....you want to dispute all the scientific facts? How about the fact that we are coming out of an ice age? How about the fact we only have weather records for the last 150 years (a rough estimate)? How about the fact that weather happens in patterns? How about the fact that the ozone hole is no smaller today than it ever has been, and that it varies on its own? How about the fact that there were no major hurricanes last year? (despite what Al Gore predicted?) How about the Fact that Al Gore does not have any sort of meteorology degree, yet people think he is the leading expert on Global Warming? Lets start there, and then move forward.

 

The sky is falling and if you don't believe it you can pay Albert Gore a six figure speaking fee or buy his book or buy his carbon credits or buy his concert tickets or go to his movie and he will explain it to you. Get behind his green movement (he's one hundred million more green since losing 7 recounts) or the sky will fall on your house and eat your children.

Al went to school to get a degree in English and switched to a Goverment major so he's as scientific as sous chefs and college students that swallow their political thinking pre-digested by their leftie professors.

 

Follow the money: it's about the carbon tax and other ways for the usual suspects to divert money from you to themselves.

 

Tbarr, D16man:

I haven't responded because this is old territory for all of us. There is a heavy majority of scientific opinion that supports the anthropogenic conclusion. There is a small minority of credible scientists that are promulgating the contrary view. We draw our conclusions accordingly. I note that no one from your view has ever answered the questions I raise in my post above.

Tbarr, not sure if your slight regarding "sous chefs" swallowing "lefty professors' " views was directed to me. If so, it's a shame, as it means you have no other means than ad hominem attacks. If so, I assure you, regarding subjects I care about, I have never swallowed anything without first thinking deeply; and I accord others, including those with contrary views, the same presumption and respect. You may, if you would, ask Gtech, a man I honor and consider as a friend on this board - though we don't agree on most things, politically. Or you could continue on your present course, which does nothing to serve your viewpoint.

If what you wrote wasn't directed to me, I still think it's a shame, since it betrays a limited worldview. The more I've come to know people, the more I am surprised by how much wisdom and knowledge many folks have, regardless of how they put food on their childrens' table.

Oh, and sous chef. Grave insult! I am a full chef!

 

watching 100,000 trees grow would actually be more exciting than Live Earth

 

The whole concert [everything] was offset through carbon credits - there's no need to plant trees.

The article brings a point on the effect of the concert, but I believe it was for the good.

Personally, I don't believe in carbon credits, it is a lot better to minimise what you do rather than pay it off. It just makes it worse with a heavier load on the Earth.