Kerry,

Sorry that's just like you. You focus on the tiny bit of mercury in the bulbs, but ignore the vast amounts of carbon dioxide, particulates, and heavy metals that won't be spewed into the atmosphere because we are using more efficient bulbs. I don't have the statistics, but I suspect more mecury makes it into the air because of the wasteful bulbs you use, than will ever come from the new bulbs.

Of course you have long stopped thinking about all the carsenogenic crap getting spewed into the air by power plants. Hell you haven't even seemed to figure out that not only do these bulbs give you cleaner air, they save you hell of alot more money on your energy bill then you saved buying the cheaper bulbs.

Sigh...its unfortunate that there's alot of other conservatives so steeped in their positions, they don't realize they have no logical position any more.

Kerry,

Have you ask yourself, are cheap light bulbs, and dirty polluting cars worth this?

Inhaling dirty air same as if a kid smoked http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/04/21/hm.dirty.air/index.html

Are the jobs in these "dirty industries" so sacred that you are willing to continue subjecting your kids to the equivalent of smoking cigarettes everyday to maintain them? Especially when those same workers could easily find jobs building cleaner energy technology?

You conservatives are so fixated on global warming and whether scientists are wrong, but you keep forgetting the fact that they are still right about the same pollution being bad for us, and they have been right about that for half a century or more.

...though he could well be right that those who perpetrated it are "going to Hell"

Cute. You Christians are insane sometimes.

It's a magazine cover. No one is insulting the veterans. If some of them have an issue with it, that's their problem. This in no way insults their service to the country or diminishes their names.

Don't you have anything better to write? No one cares about this site anymore because it's run by right wing nut jobs. Ahh.... comedy during my lunch break.

Kerry,

Yet another headline that points out the high cost of pollution. Its not worth it when their are cleaner technologies out there. Cheap bulbs aren't worth people dying over....

Scientists: Smog contributes to premature death http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/04/22/smog.death.ap/index.html And of course the Bush administration disputes the claim, but who do you think I am going to believe, scientists who study pollution for a living, or a politician who has a vested interest in making sure no legislation is passed that hurts his contributors.

"It's a magazine cover. No one is insulting the veterans. If some of them have an issue with it, that's their problem. "

It's just the Confederate flag. No one is insulting African-americans. If some of them have an issue with it, that's their problem.

Right?

"but who do you think I am going to believe, scientists who study pollution for a living, or a politician who has a vested interest in making sure no legislation is passed that hurts his contributors."

I think you're going to believe AlGore. A failed politician, who has a financial interest in green technology, a Messianic complex, and a deep and abiding grudge against all those who kept him from the throne that was rightfully his.

By the way, who are Bush's "contributors?" At this point, no one can give him campaign money, he has no interests to protect. Why trust him less than the people who are entirely dependent on research funding?

It's just the Confederate flag. No one is insulting African-americans. If some of them have an issue with it, that's their problem.

If you want to have the confederate flag up, be my guest, I'm fairly certain THAT is more offensive than soldiers planting a fucking tree but that's my humble opinion.

"Oh, no, it's insulting the soldiers..."

Really? The same soldiers who fought Nazis and embedded Japanese on islands throughout the Pacific? All these brave men REALLY consider the image of a tree being planted offensive? I'm sure you'll be able to show that there are a few "upset" people, but that's the case in many situations.

I'm even less sympathetic to your point when you make an analogy using the confederate flag, the relation is very different.

Al Gore is a failed politician? He served two terms as Vice President of the United States!! Your poor children! Anything less than President or Savior of mankind for them and you'd consider that a failure? Yikes, and you talk about elitists!

"Al Gore is a failed politician? He served two terms as Vice President of the United States!!"

Being Vice President is usually not considered a great achievement. And he did fail to become President, did he not?

"Really? The same soldiers who fought Nazis and embedded Japanese on islands throughout the Pacific? All these brave men REALLY consider the image of a tree being planted offensive? I'm sure you'll be able to show that there are a few "upset" people, but that's the case in many situations."

It's not the TREE being PLANTED. It's the AMERICAN FLAG being SUPplanted. These men fought and many such men DIED for the FLAG--not for a tree.

The eco-freak movement is trying to convince the world that we are in a crisis as bad as World War II. That's not only insulting to the soldiers at Iwo Jima, the whole concept is offensive to the memory of the six million Jews who DIED from the ideology that we defeated in that war. Planting a tree would not have saved them; planting the flag saved millions more.

"Being Vice President is usually not considered a great achievement."

I guess that explains Mr. Cheney.

"And he did fail to become President, did he not?"

He did not become President, you are correct, but the election was one of the most controversial in the history of the country. I am totally not offended if you want to call Mr. Gore a failure. I hope you're not offended when I say he's a great man.

Is it REALLY that offensive to replace the flag with a tree? I mean really? I really think it's sad to think it's offensive and hurts anyone, let's examine why, you said:

"These men fought and many such men DIED for the FLAG--not for a tree."

Two points: 1.

No, these men didn't die for a symbolic piece of cloth; they died for our country, our freedom and the freedom of different people around the world. You bet your ass that's inspirational, heroic and brave. The flag symbolizes our coutry and freedom, to say that men died for "the flag" is sort of like idolatry, do you worship false idols in the presence of your almighty God? Is that what you're saying.

2.

The point of the image was to inspire people to act, although you may not agree, Earth day or month is important to people who want to give back to our planet. I see they picked this image people many people know what it really represents and they wanted to use an image that would be inspirational. I don't find it particularly offensive nor do I find it that inspirational; it's clever in a high school art project sort of way.

One last point, first you reference the confederate flag, now the holocaust? Neither has anything to do with this magazine cover and I just am puzzled how you can be so shallow as to use these as your rationale behind why this is offensive.

Kerry, one last time, it's just a stupid magazine cover, no one will revise history and say it was really a tree those brave men raised in Iwo Jima, this is just plain silly.

The eco-freak movement is trying to convince the world that we are in a crisis as bad as World War II.

Kerry,

The Sierra Nevada of California which is the primary source of water for 30 million people and a lot of agriculture has lost a third of its water resources in the last 20 years, and its expected to lose another third in the next 20 years, because of less snow and earlier snow melts. If you don't think that is a serious problem, I don't know what is. And that is just one example of the global warming problem you don't think exists.

"If you don't think that is a serious problem, I don't know what is."

The global threat in the 1930s of worldwide Nazi dominion.

The global threat for 70 years of worldwide Communist domination.

The current threat of Islamo-fascism.

The black plague.

The Flood.

The Battle of Armageddon.

NOT less SNOW.

"The Flood"

Hmm, are you refering to a mythological global flood?

That did not happen. There are 10,000 year old trees to prove it.

"The Battle of Armageddon."

Okay, you're just being fucking stupid now.

""The Flood""

"Hmm, are you refering to a mythological global flood?"

I am referring to the Biblical Genesis Flood. Would you not agree that--"mythological" or otherwise--that would constitute "a serious problem?"

"That did not happen. There are 10,000 year old trees to prove it."

How do 10,000 year old trees disprove the Flood?

""The Battle of Armageddon.""

"Okay, you're just being [unnecessary and immature expletive deleted] stupid now."

I would advise you to read the relevant Biblical passages. I think you would agree that such an event would also qualify as "a serious problem."

Kerry,

Perhaps when those 30 million people start moving into your town in a hurry because they can no longer live in California you will start to understand the magnitude of just one of potentially thousands of affects that global warming could have on our nation and the world.

Add to that millions of people migrating from the coast lines because of sea level rise, people leaving desert areas like Vegas and Phoenix, and others moving north to get away from increasingly violent hurricanes. The potential for global warming to cause massive shifts in population is nothing to sneeze at, especially when there is evidence of true affects already happening (like the disappearing snows of the Sierras and the Colorado Rockies).

Kerry,

Oh and I noticed you dodged the fact that even without global warming, you have no real answer to the very real dangers already produced by fossil fuel pollution. Instead of going on an Al Gore tirade, how about you answer this. Why should I have to continue to breath bad air that could sicken and kill me and my children, just so you can enjoy cheap light bulbs (actually the are more expensive), and cheap gas (not so cheap anymore), and maintain jobs that are easily replaced by equally good paying jobs in the renewable energy business.

There is really no excuse to maintain the energy polluting, energy wasting, deadend job society of my parents and grandparents when there is proven technology and plenty of new era jobs to solve all of the problems that people stuck in the status quo of today just want to avoid, for the sake of avoiding, and not because they have a real argument anymore.

Kerry, you asked: "How do 10,000 year old trees disprove the Flood?"

Because if there was a global flood:

Why is there no evidence of a flood on tree rings or varves?

Then there are a few other problems:

Building vessel as big as ark Number of animals on ark

Loading them

Feeding them

Mucking them out

Special diets, eucalyptus leaves, live food Where did the water come from

Where did it go to

How come the atmosphere didn't become toxic or superheated

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice cores (assuming that polar caps are even possible)

Why are geological eras consistent world wide

Why are fossils sorted

Why did corals survive

Why are there no human artifacts in the same layers as dinosaurs

How can a single flood (or asmall number of floods) account for sedimentary layering How did varves form, for example the Green river formation in Wyoming has 20 million layers

Where did all the heat go if all the geological record was deposited in a year

How can you explain the accuracy of coral clocks

Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from

How did all the fish survive, when some need fresh water and some need salt water

How did diseases survive

How did things like Mayflies survive

Why are some animals found in only a few areas

Why are there no records of the flood in the historical records of Egypt and Mesapotamia

How come there were sufficient humans around after the flood to build the pyramids or Stonehenge

Those all would need to be answered fully in order for the possibility of an event to even be have a chance at being plausible.

I am sorry for swearing, but I did it to get a point across, you're dissing global warming but referencing "The Battle of Armageddon" The same type of questions would need to be asked regarding this "prophecy." I know you believe in the Bible and the truth it spews but this is just crazy if you believe that prophecy over global warming.

SSE,

Actually the simpler question would be how could a 10k year old tree survive under water? Since the flood covered even the highest mountain by more than 20 feet, and killed all everything off.

And of course I have asked Kerry where did all the water go? Short of a change in the laws of physics or black magic on God's part, water doesn't just come from nowhere and disappear into nowhere. If you covered every mountain on Earth today with water, you'd have to have uniform column of water on Earth that is more than 30k feet high. There is no way in hell you can reshape the earth the continents or the oceans to make that much water disappear.

Oh and then there is the even more basic question. What could a tree or an animal with no true free will possibly do to deserve getting drowned by God? Anybody see a tree sin lately?

Kerry,

You also have to ask yourself if God wanted to truly punish the world and all its animals, why did he flood the world. Most of the world's life lives in the ocean, and raising the oceans wouldn't have affected them. He'd have been better off burning the place to a crisp.

My point as with SSE's is that even though are more holes in this silly fable then their is in evolutionary biology, you'll believe in a heart beat anyway, yet criticize evolution as impossible. You don't know silly that makes religious literalists look to us.