First, the "Bush lied" call has been uttered time and time again but it has no factual bases; it is just political rhetoric. To say that Bush lied is to say the he KNEW that there were no WMDs in Iraq yet pushed for war anyway while manufacturing evidence to support his claim. That is to say that he knowingly, purposefully, and deviously misled the American people. However, there is no evidence to support such a claim that he deceived. If anything, the most that can be said is that he – along with the UN and congress, for they all agreed that Iraq had or was working to produce WMDs – where wrong. If Bush lied, everyone lied. There is a big difference between being wrong and being deceitful. However, I do not believe that our intelligence and that gathered by others internationally was wrong. Many of our ground forces, commanders, intelligence gatherers, and captured enemy combatants point toward the high probability that Saddam moved what weapons and programs he had to surrounding nations such as Syria. Besides, we did find chemical weapons which were supposed to have been destroyed. Bush didn't lie; Saddam did. The only mistake Bush made was giving Saddam too much time to erase his programs.
Second, you are really going off subject as I thought you were talking about global warming. Global warming can be traced back to the Sun. Did you read the article I posted about some of the myths Gore puts forward?
Communism vs. Capitalism is by no means moot. The question is which one of these is the government of fools. Capitalism by definition cannot be ruined by fools in government because it is not ruled by them. That is what the free market means. Communism is the government of fools because it places control of the market directly under the authority of fools. Not fools so much because they are stupid per se or evil, but because there is know way they can have the completeness of knowledge and understanding to make wise decisions regarding what is placed under their authority. That is the problem with central planning. Which is the fool, the one who assumes to know everything or the one who recognizes how little one can know? Such an important question is not moot, especially in the case of the government and environment. One's answer to this question can mean the difference between freedom and tyranny, clean air and pollution, forest and wastelands. The communist Soviet Union, though not as prosperous and productive as the US capitalism, produced far more pollution and destroyed far more of the earth than Capitalism. Where do we find these countries you mention were people are massacred and large portions of the environment are destroyed? Not the capitalist countries. Capitalism is the best thing for the environment. Moot? How could you say something so unconsidered?
Gore's film (among other things) is covered in junk science and shady connections – which is what I said in my first post. Even scientists who agree with his basic thesis (global warming is manmade) disagree with his evidence.
Does silt flowing out of rivers constitute such an extreme, rather over exaggerated and overly general statement such as "destroying the earth?" While I understand how one can use this phrase with correct implications, you seem to mean the that we are literally destroying the planet as a whole. And that simply is not true. If someone does not believe in God that does not mean that they will destroy the environment. To the contrary, modern environmentalism to many people is a religion in and of itself (after all, if god does not exist, only the world, then the world – stuff – becomes god). They worship the environment. Any alteration to the environment by man is a sin. Mankind is seen as a disease, a plague of the earth.
My question to you was what does greed and the wealthy have to do with global climate change, which was the topic. Many nations in Africa are restricted from utilizing electrical power to advance or use insecticides by organizations such as the UN for the purposes of "protecting the environment." People die because of these environmental safety measures. It is easy to get caught up in the cause of saving the environment without examining the consequence of ones actions. Intentions don't change reality.