Bluegrassrivals

What is everyone's opinion on this article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...ient-truth

Im really not suprised you read stuff from that site, as they openly state they are a right wing site. Their combating the "liberal media bias". It's funny that the right wing bashes the left for reading from liberal sites, but yet the right wing has their own sites spreading their ideas. It's just that most of the stuff coming from liberals is more accurate and better written.

Most of the stuff they claim as False, the courts just couldn't clarify one war or another so they listed it as false. I find it interesting that no where in the article do they say global warming isnt real, or that humans are not a major cause. So really this article is nothing more than a political jab at gore. To bad they couldn't find that global warming isn't real, that would really have the right wing in an uproar.

I don't even like Al Gore or that movie for that matter but that court and their "facts" are bogus. What are they using as facts other than saying that he was wrong?

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Im really not suprised you read stuff from that site, as they openly state they are a right wing site. Their combating the "liberal media bias". It's funny that the right wing bashes the left for reading from liberal sites, but yet the right wing has their own sites spreading their ideas. It's just that most of the stuff coming from liberals is more accurate and better written.

Most of the stuff they claim as False, the courts just couldn't clarify one war or another so they listed it as false. I find it interesting that no where in the article do they say global warming isnt real, or that humans are not a major cause. So really this article is nothing more than a political jab at gore. To bad they couldn't find that global warming isn't real, that would really have the right wing in an uproar.

This was my first visit to this site, and yes they are a right wing site, but these 11 inaccuracies in Gores Incoventient Truth were determined by the British High Court, not by some right wing group. If you could show me a liberal site that has this story I would be glad to read it, I don't think you will find this story on NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS or any other liberal news scource.

How can you prove your comment "the courts just couldn't clarify one way or another so they listed it as false." Do you really think a British court would rule that way? If enviros could actually prove these points in court clarification wouldn't be a issue.

As far as Global Warming goes, and as I've stated before the Earth has gone through thousands of warming and cooling cycles since it's existence, and I believe we are going through a warming cycle now. I for one do not believe that humans are causing Global Warming, if that were the case how do you explain the warming cycles that happened thousands and millions of years ago?

Old School Wrote:This was my first visit to this site, and yes they are a right wing site, but these 11 inaccuracies in Gores Incoventient Truth were determined by the British High Court, not by some right wing group. If you could show me a liberal site that has this story I would be glad to read it, I don't think you will find this story on NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS or any other liberal news scource.

How can you prove your comment "the courts just couldn't clarify one way or another so they listed it as false." Do you really think a British court would rule that way? If enviros could actually prove these points in court clarification wouldn't be a issue.

As far as Global Warming goes, and as I've stated before the Earth has gone through thousands of warming and cooling cycles since it's existence, and I believe we are going through a warming cycle now. I for one do not believe that humans are causing Global Warming, if that were the case how do you explain the warming cycles that happened thousands and millions of years ago?

"The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. [B]The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim[/B]."

"The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim."

Come on, you cant just say you didnt find evidence, prove it, show me your facts. I'm not like you, I dont buy just any BS, you have to prove your point.




I dont think you will find that story on any other "News Source" (and I really stress news, networks that you watch like FOX or just pure BS 90% of the time) becuase it's not worth mentioning, maybe it will scroll on the bottom of CNN, or MSNBC, but it's definitely not worth air time, when you find evidence that Global warming cant be happening, then I will listen.

We really don't need to have this argument over whether global warming is real, and that humans are a main cause. If you would really study the subject and stop listening to political nutjobs, you would know this. The scientific community overwhelmingly agree, just do a little "real" research and you will find that out. It really dont matter how much evidence there is to prove Global Warming is real, people on the right will just find some sorry excuse like the article you gave that it isnt real.

I have one more thing to say. If Global Warming isn't happening, and humans aren't to blame, then why do people like you make such a big deal out of things. You have no evidence to prove your point, so you just blast anyone who shows evidence that it is real.

You mention global warming more than any liberal I know. And I thought the liberals where obsessed with it.

Al Gore has received a Nobel Prize for service to humanity for his work on global warming. I am no scientist and find a lot of
the science involved in the issue difficult to understand. However, I do not doubt that Al Gore is sincere. To give that much time, that much of your life to something doesn't make sense if you don't really believe it to be true. Though, Saul of Tarsus (if you believe the story) was a very sincere man, but he was wrong...not saying that Gore is wrong, but that sincerity doesn't always translate to truth. Still, he should be commended and congratulated on receiving a prestigious award.

That's why Gore's "the former next President of the United States," as he claims in the film (for anyone who hasn't seen it)

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:"The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. [B]The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim[/B]."

"The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim."

Come on, you cant just say you didnt find evidence, prove it, show me your facts. I'm not like you, I dont buy just any BS, you have to prove your point.




I dont think you will find that story on any other "News Source" (and I really stress news, networks that you watch like FOX or just pure BS 90% of the time) becuase it's not worth mentioning, maybe it will scroll on the bottom of CNN, or MSNBC, but it's definitely not worth air time, when you find evidence that Global warming cant be happening, then I will listen.

We really don't need to have this argument over whether global warming is real, and that humans are a main cause. If you would really study the subject and stop listening to political nutjobs, you would know this. The scientific community overwhelmingly agree, just do a little "real" research and you will find that out. It really dont matter how much evidence there is to prove Global Warming is real, people on the right will just find some sorry excuse like the article you gave that it isnt real.

Well, I guess I could follow Gore's path and make-up bogus information for you, but I just can't do that. In response to your first statement, The Government was unable to find evidence supporting Gore's claim that the "rising sea levels caused the evacuation of certain Island", so then Gore's claim appears to be false.

In the second statement, again the Government could not find any evidence to support Gore's claim that "Global Warming was the blame for species losses including coral reef bleaching, which appears to make this another false claim by Gore.

Here's a list of the 11 inaccuracies found by a British High Court

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
  
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Apparently your buying Gore's BS, because you seem to believe everything the man is saying, above is a list of 11 misleading or false claims, that he made in the film "An Inconventient Truth" The findings of the British court is my proof that this film is full of misleading and false information. Now where's your proof and please don't use any of Gore's info. because we all know that it's flat out wrong.

I admit that I watch Fox News, I also spend about the same amount of time watching other news networks such as MSNBC, CNN, CHN and it seems like Dan Abrams and Keith Olberman of MSNBC are obsessed with Fox News and CHN, they give them more advertisements than their own networks. Of all the news shows on between 7pm and 10 pm I think Bill O'Rielly and Glen Beck are the most impartial host on TV today.

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:I have one more thing to say. If Global Warming isn't happening, and humans aren't to blame, then why do people like you make such a big deal out of things. You have no evidence to prove your point, so you just blast anyone who shows evidence that it is real.

You mention global warming more than any liberal I know. And I thought the liberals where obsessed with it.

About 18,000 years ago Ice covered what is now the northern part of the U.S., so yes I have to say the Earth has warmed significantly since then, so can you explain to me how this could man's fault since the industrial era only began nearly 100 years ago.

Let me ask you this, Do you think the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.

I'm not blasting anyone, everyday I either hear or read reports about Global Warming either on the radio, TV, internet or in newspapers, and 95% percent of the time it's from the liberals viewpoint. I ran across this article and thought it would be interesting to have information and views from other countries. Hopefully it will give the readers another perspective on the subject. You on the other hand seem to get very upset when someone doesn't agree with you.

I don't think I'm obsessed with it, but I would like for you or someone to answer the question I ask in post #4 and that is "If humans are the cause of Global Warming now, then what caused the many warming cycles of the past?" In all honesty I've been asking this question for over a year now and no one seems to have a answer, so I really don't expect you to either.

Global Warming is an issue we can debate on here till the cows come home and nobodys going to change nobodys mind. It's like abortion, gay rights, etc........ If you believe it, you have your reasons. If you don't, you also have your reasons. Most Republicans including the Bush administration have started to acknowledge global warming as a problem. Is it man made? I guess the way you answer that once again depends on which side of the argument you come down on.

Old School Wrote:About 18,000 years ago Ice covered what is now the northern part of the U.S., so yes I have to say the Earth has warmed significantly since then, so can you explain to me how this could man's fault since the industrial era only began nearly 100 years ago.

Let me ask you this, Do you think the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.

I'm not blasting anyone, everyday I either hear or read reports about Global Warming either on the radio, TV, internet or in newspapers, and 95% percent of the time it's from the liberals viewpoint. I ran across this article and thought it would be interesting to have information and views from other countries. Hopefully it will give the readers another perspective on the subject. You on the other hand seem to get very upset when someone doesn't agree with you.

I don't think I'm obsessed with it, but I would like for you or someone to answer the question I ask in post #4 and that is "If humans are the cause of Global Warming now, then what caused the many warming cycles of the past?" In all honesty I've been asking this question for over a year now and no one seems to have a answer, so I really don't expect you to either.

Yes I do believe that, but thats a simple logic to use on such a big issue as the one we are facing. There is so much more involved in the warming of the earth today than just a warming cycle. Scientist say that the earth hits an ice age every 100,000 years, the last one (Which you speak so much of) was 10,000 years ago. So this change in the climate is not expected, something has to be causing the dramatic change in temperature.

"What we have here is a great laboratory for seeing how climate changes naturally," he said. "But this is a 100,000-year cycle, whereas global warming is happening a thousand times faster." Thats a quote from the site below from a study of the earth temperature cycles.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0..._tilt.html

Man can be blamed for the rapid heating of the earth today becuase of the greenhouse effect. We are pouring gases into the air that get caught in the atmosphere and cause more heat from light to be reflected and trapped on earth.

Scientist blame the last ice age, and the previous ones on the tilt of the earth. This tilt, which is always changing, is what causes us to have seasons and some parts of the earth to have periods of 24-hour daylight/night. Global warming is happening 1000 times faster than other changes, so you really cant blame this on the "average" change in earths temperature.

Old School Wrote:Well, I guess I could follow Gore's path and make-up bogus information for you, but I just can't do that. In response to your first statement, The Government was unable to find evidence supporting Gore's claim that the "rising sea levels caused the evacuation of certain Island", so then Gore's claim appears to be false.

In the second statement, again the Government could not find any evidence to support Gore's claim that "Global Warming was the blame for species losses including coral reef bleaching, which appears to make this another false claim by Gore.

Here's a list of the 11 inaccuracies found by a British High Court

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
  
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Apparently your buying Gore's BS, because you seem to believe everything the man is saying, above is a list of 11 misleading or false claims, that he made in the film "An Inconventient Truth" The findings of the British court is my proof that this film is full of misleading and false information. Now where's your proof and please don't use any of Gore's info. because we all know that it's flat out wrong.

I admit that I watch Fox News, I also spend about the same amount of time watching other news networks such as MSNBC, CNN, CHN and it seems like Dan Abrams and Keith Olberman of MSNBC are obsessed with Fox News and CHN, they give them more advertisements than their own networks. Of all the news shows on between 7pm and 10 pm I think Bill O'Rielly and Glen Beck are the most impartial host on TV today.

lol, thats the funniest and craziest statement I have ever heard. O'Rielly impartial, wow, you really are lost.

O'rielly is only impartial to people who already agree with him, which you do, so I can see why you feel that way.

O'Rielly constantly cuts off peoples mics when they start to prove him wrong, and lies about everyone who disagrees with him. He lied about the study done at Indiana that showed his bias and rudeness. He lied about the US troops massacre at Malmedy, (He said the US troops killed Germans, it was the other way around. He never offered an apology for this.) He blamed the Katrina mess on the poor in an attempt to take pressure off of bush. He claimed he won a Peabody award, which he never did. He is always spinning things for the Right, and you call him impartial. Wow I completely understand why you can be fooled so easy now.


Glen Beck has a definite lean toward the right, but I really dont mind his craziness as bad, he stands up for what he believes in, and he doesn't constantly back one side. And he is against MTR, big plus for me.

Just saw on CBS, and read some articles about these 11 "inaccuracies". The same judge who made these statements also said the movie was "powerful", and "Professionally done". Some of the inaccuracies the court found, where not really false, here are some examples.

* "The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia."

The film and the court agree here. The movie says that it could melt. Even a slight melting of the ice could have a dramatic effect on sea levels.


"The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim."

A simple google search will bring up several studies that back the film.

here is one example
http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm
this was written in 1998, long before this film was thought of.

I think the only weakness was the court not finding studies to back their view.


I think it's great to examine this film for falsehoods, we do it in all scientific fields. You learn from mistakes. But I also think a lot of these "inaccuracies" really aren't inaccurate.

And to answer your question about me "buying Gore's BS", that is just crazy, I havent even watched the movie. Ive only seen small clips. I really dont care what anyone in politics has to say, as the majority lie and are only out for themselves. I do respect what Al Gore has done, (He has won a Nobel Peace Prize) as the majority of his "Facts" can be proven, and aren't a myth like the WMD's in Iraq.

I believe in Global Warming from what I have read from scientific sources, and what I have researched and studied both on my own and in the classroom.

thecavemaster Wrote: However, I do not doubt that Al Gore is sincere. To give that much time, that much of your life to something doesn't make sense if you don't really believe it to be true. Though, Saul of Tarsus (if you believe the story) was a very sincere man, but he was wrong...not saying that Gore is wrong, but that sincerity doesn't always translate to truth. Still, he should be commended and congratulated on receiving a prestigious award.

Might have to disagree with you here. He may very well be sincere but have you happened to notice his 'Carbon Footprint'? Not exactly the smallest one in the world when you look at all th energy that his house uses as well as him always a private jet to move about the country. He may be sincere, but his actions don't prove it. Seems like a huge money making machine to me. But it is working for him so I'll give him props on that!

Beef Wrote:Might have to disagree with you here. He may very well be sincere but have you happened to notice his 'Carbon Footprint'? Not exactly the smallest one in the world when you look at all th energy that his house uses as well as him always a private jet to move about the country. He may be sincere, but his actions don't prove it. Seems like a huge money making machine to me. But it is working for him so I'll give him props on that!

I'm pretty sure that Al Gore's travels, which he thinks are in pursuit of informing the public as to global warming, are not going to tip the balance. Have you been in his house? Do you know for a fact he doesn't use solar or geothermal? Do you know for a fact how big his "carbon footprint" is in relation to others within his social context? Again, I am no expert in global warming, but I don't think Al Gore began this work as a corporate money making strategy. I think his actions (the travel, the time, the energy) suggest sincerity.

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:[/b]


lol, thats the funniest and craziest statement I have ever heard. O'Rielly impartial, wow, you really are lost.

O'rielly is only impartial to people who already agree with him, which you do, so I can see why you feel that way.

O'Rielly constantly cuts off peoples mics when they start to prove him wrong, and lies about everyone who disagrees with him. He lied about the study done at Indiana that showed his bias and rudeness. He lied about the US troops massacre at Malmedy, (He said the US troops killed Germans, it was the other way around. He never offered an apology for this.) He blamed the Katrina mess on the poor in an attempt to take pressure off of bush. He claimed he won a Peabody award, which he never did. He is always spinning things for the Right, and you call him impartial. Wow I completely understand why you can be fooled so easy now.


Glen Beck has a definite lean toward the right, but I really dont mind his craziness as bad, he stands up for what he believes in, and he doesn't constantly back one side. And he is against MTR, big plus for me.

I never said O'Rielly was completely impartial, I said he and Beck were the most impartial host on TV today. Every host/reporter will cut someone off if they don't tell them what they want to hear, but if you ever find someone that doesn't cut someone off, please tell me who it is and I will listen to them.

Your right Beck stands up for what he believes in regardless of which side its on, I didn't know he was against MTR, as a matter of fact I've never heard him say either way, and I've never found anyone I agree with a 100% of the time neither.

You know, I've always been told that wisdom comes with age.............hang in there you'll be there someday.:graduate:

Old School Wrote:I never said O'Rielly was completely impartial, I said he and Beck were the most impartial host on TV today. Every host/reporter will cut someone off if they don't tell them what they want to hear, but if you ever find someone that doesn't cut someone off, please tell me who it is and I will listen to them.

Your right Beck stands up for what he believes in regardless of which side its on, I didn't know he was against MTR, as a matter of fact I've never heard him say either way, and I've never found anyone I agree with a 100% of the time neither.

You know, I've always been told that wisdom comes with age.............hang in there you'll be there someday.:graduate:

The majority of people get uncomfortable when confronted with change, but O'rielly goes crazy. Ive never seen anyone flat out lie like he does. And he does it a constant basis, all why stating he is an "Independent", and presents both sides of the issue. lol, he's funny though, I give him that, I guess when you lie so much you really start to believe yourself.

I really don't watch any cable news channels, most of my knowledge comes from reading articles in newspapers, books, and online sources. Fox can not be taken as a serious news network for the things they do behind the scenes. Giving your reporters a memo on all things to say, and not to say, and just how you can say them is insane. And this has happened a lot over at Fox Noise.

As far as the wisdom thing, I never claimed I was any wiser than anyone else, I can just see through BS when it is pushed into my face on a daily basis.

Beck stated he was against the new proposal issued by the bush administration. He stated that he doesn't think this a reliable source for future energy. I was shocked when I heard this, I really didn't expect him to take that angle with the story. I will try to find a transcript of that show and post a link to it.

Old School Wrote:I never said O'Rielly was completely impartial, I said he and Beck were the most impartial host on TV today. Every host/reporter will cut someone off if they don't tell them what they want to hear, but if you ever find someone that doesn't cut someone off, please tell me who it is and I will listen to them.

Your right Beck stands up for what he believes in regardless of which side its on, I didn't know he was against MTR, as a matter of fact I've never heard him say either way, and I've never found anyone I agree with a 100% of the time neither.

You know, I've always been told that wisdom comes with age.............hang in there you'll be there someday.:graduate:

The Nazarene Carpenter (if you believe the story) was in his early thirties when he delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Wisdom can come with age, but it doesn't necessarily follow. Also, wisdom can come at an early age...but doesn't necessarily have to. I've always been told a lot of things, and a lot of it is garbage.

thecavemaster Wrote:The Nazarene Carpenter (if you believe the story) was in his early thirties when he delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Wisdom can come with age, but it doesn't necessarily follow. Also, wisdom can come at an early age...but doesn't necessarily have to. I've always been told a lot of things, and a lot of it is garbage.

I have to disagree with you on your last statement, I think wisdom does come with age and experience, as one experiences lifes triumps, failures and everyday tribulations, is when one gains wisdom. I have know several people that were placed in demanding positions at a young age, even though they were highly educated and motivated they did not have the wisdom to perform their job duties and were dismissed. Today these same individuals excel in these demanding position, due to the experience, triumps and failures they have encountered over the years. I for one realize that today, I'm a much wiser person than I was 20 years ago and I also expect to have more wisdom 20 years from now.

We've all been told a lot of things, and with a lot of it being garbage, but I'm sure as you aged you were better able to tell what was garbage and what was not.

Old School Wrote:I have to disagree with you on your last statement, I think wisdom does come with age and experience, as one experiences lifes triumps, failures and everyday tribulations, is when one gains wisdom. I have know several people that were placed in demanding positions at a young age, even though they were highly educated and motivated they did not have the wisdom to perform their job duties and were dismissed. Today these same individuals excel in these demanding position, due to the experience, triumps and failures they have encountered over the years. I for one realize that today, I'm a much wiser person than I was 20 years ago and I also expect to have more wisdom 20 years from now.

We've all been told a lot of things, and with a lot of it being garbage, but I'm sure as you aged you were better able to tell what was garbage and what was not.

I do not dispute that life experiences and the tempering process that takes youthful arrogance and turns it into a more measured view of oneself often comes as the years roll on. However, I do contend that the one does not of necessity follow the other. Your last statement is correct; however, it is a double cutter because it was OLDER people who told me a lot of that garbage...

[quote=thecavemaster]I do not dispute that life experiences and the tempering process that takes youthful arrogance and turns it into a more measured view of oneself often comes as the years roll on. However, I do contend that the one does not of necessity follow the other. Your last statement is correct; however, it is a double cutter because it was OLDER people who told me a lot of that garbage...[/quote]

I don't doubt that at all, as I have also listened to a lot of garbage, from both young and old, neither seem to have exclusive rights on saying whatever they want, regardless of it's correctness.

Old School Wrote:[quote=thecavemaster]I do not dispute that life experiences and the tempering process that takes youthful arrogance and turns it into a more measured view of oneself often comes as the years roll on. However, I do contend that the one does not of necessity follow the other. Your last statement is correct; however, it is a double cutter because it was OLDER people who told me a lot of that garbage...[/quote]

I don't doubt that at all, as I have also listened to a lot of garbage, from both young and old, neither seem to have exclusive rights on saying whatever they want, regardless of it's correctness.

I wonder when you will realize that a lot of garbage leaves your mouth on a daily basis.

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:[quote=Old School]

I wonder when you will realize that a lot of garbage leaves your mouth on a daily basis.

Opinions are not garbage. Please refrain from comments like this one. Thank you.

Beef Wrote:[quote=Coach_Owens87]
Opinions are not garbage. Please refrain from comments like this one. Thank you.

Since my comment was an opininon, shouldnt that just nullify what you just said?

Plus I never said his opinions where garbage, just that a lot of the stuff he says is garbage. You are the one who implied that I was talking about opinions.

No matter if the movie has inaccuracies or not Global climate change is occurring. It doesn't matter if people want to say that it isn't for sake that this is a liberal idea. I am a devote Republican, but I do believe that the elements of our society are having a negative impact on the world we live in. Also, even if Global warming were in fact a hoax. The lifestyles of many throughout the world is depleting our resources at an alarming rate, so if by creating this myth of global warming causes many to recycle and create more environmentally friendly laws then I am all for whatever lives helps, because no matter what we try to believe we should be stewards of this land and leave it in a better state for our children than we received it in.