I just despise Gore and Clinton,,
and yes no one should be above question,,, or correction..

Then mruffolo said: “I observe some complain about leaders in our little men’s group. … Though it’s not a perfect world, I want each person building into each other.”

bigpapa: “Are you saying we shouldn’t criticize Gore and Willy because they are men..??”

He was saying don’t cut up Glenn Sacks. He wasn’t saying don’t cut up Gore or Clinton.

Bigpapa’s point seems to be that we should be able to cut up leaders in the men’s movement just like we cut up other men, like Gore and Clinton.

But the difference is that Gore and Clinton are forces for evil and Glenn is a force for good. So we should be more restrained in our criticism of Glenn. Glenn is doing a lot of good stuff and we need guys like him so let’s support him. Any criticism should be more constructive and supportive. Comparing Glenn to Al Gore (as someone did above) is an insult, and I don’t think Glenn deserves that.

There’s also some evident confusion between substance, and what play actors or entertainers put out.

I’m not sure I understand your point???
Are you saying we shouldn’t criticize Gore and Willy because they are men..??

Also, WLS; re-read the article. RJ didn’t say anything about cows farting CD. Cows fart methane which is a greenhouse gas.

But, Knight, ask what happens when those 7 G-tons accumulate year after year: it’s already about 1/3 of the net, _resident_ carbon (not the “flux”).

And Horrible Heeb, note that cows don’t flatuate CH_4: they burp it out through their mouths; appreciate the difference between the opposing ends of the alimentary tract, and visit a pasture sometime.

You can refer to the ex-president simply as `BJ Clinton’: Bill Jefferson is literally his name.

But please allow me to entertain you with some real numbers, not an analogy.
440 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide flush in and out of the biomass each year. It is created by metabolism, decay, and fire. It is then put back into the biomass by the magic of plant photosynthesis.

And what magic that is. All the fruits, vegetables, and grains you eat are directly created by plant photosynthesis. What plants we don’t eat are fed to horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, geese, etc., even the deer and the antelope eat plants we oculd not digest. Not only do we eat the meat, dairy and eggs, we sleep on the feathers and wear the leather. Not to mention the wood, rubber and fiber we use from the trees, flax, hemp and sisal.

About half of that 440 trillion pounds of carbon is turned by phytoplankton into fish food, providing us with salmon, halibut, and cod, along with lobsters and crabs and clams, oh my!

The fossil fuel contribution? A mere 14.3 trillion pounds is added each year to the 440 trillion pound natural flux described herein above. Most of which is photosynthesized into the biomass. Which includes the food we eat, the animals, the plants, us, and all that is living or dead and decaying.

Is it really a bad thing that we are taking carbon that has been buried in the ground for millions of years and releasing it to the atmosphere where it is available for plant photosynthesis? Is a larger biomass a bad thing?

And we are donig it the best way to do it, a moderate amount when compared to the vast natural flux we have long called the carbon cycle.

The Earth warms up, it cools down, and sometimes it even stays the same for a little while. But like the price of a share of stock, past performance is no guarantee of future results! Reducing our use of fossil fuels will have as much effect on what the climate does as sacrificing a virgin has on whether a volcano erupts!

The environmental footprint of these around-the-world ‘concerts’ of crassness are horrendous. Thank goodness more didn’t bother to watch the Tv transmissions. Just think of the amount of fuel that needs to be burned to generate electricity for several billion TV sets.

I saw this analysis on the net a while back. It could be useful to help the great unwashed understand that they are being led astry by the charlatans.

2400 Bottles of water

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water — 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun’s reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases.

Only one case — just 24 bottles out of 2,400 — would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don’t know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that — at least 95% — is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the 0.04%carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide.

Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Australia’s contribution is just 1.1% — about 0.5 ml.

If, as Mr. Rudd and Old Oily Head-Banger demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third — which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Australia (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or some combination of all these — we would be saving one-quarter of 1 ml — the tip of an eyedropper.

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.

It’s hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Rudd and Old Oily Head-Banger could explain that in his next press release.

It’s so much fun watching turds crash and burn.