[TheWOAT]

I dont care either, but alot of people do.
I dont care what he does, as long as he is trying or making it look like he is trying, or lies that he is trying, or not trying much at all and not even addressing those criticisms.. Either way, who cares.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Then why do you keep clicking on this thread?

jeez, no one can ever have a discussion about something besson3c doesn't care about? Get over yourself.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then why do you keep clicking on this thread?

jeez, no one can ever have a discussion about something besson3c doesn't care about? Get over yourself.

I didn't say that. Like I've expressed before, I'm simply trying to understand this fascination and obsession. You guys can go on about whatever the hell you want, whatever floats your boat.

I've posed this question many times though, and nobody has really answered it in a way that made sense to me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I didn't say that. Like I've expressed before, I'm simply trying to understand

No you're not. This is not the tone of someone who's "simply trying to understand:"

I've asked once and I'll ask again: WHO THE **** CARES?

I don't care about what Al Gore does just like I don't care about what Paris Hilton does.

And do you nag people in the Paris Hilton threads about it too?

I've posed this question many times though, and nobody has really answered it in a way that made sense to me.

I answered your question multiple times, and you ignored me. If I answer again will you ignore me again?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No you're not. This is not the tone of someone who's "simply trying to understand:"

I've asked once and I'll ask again: WHO THE **** CARES?


And do you nag people in the Paris Hilton threads about it too?



I answered your question multiple times, and you ignored me. If I answer again will you ignore me again?

Go for it... I'd like to hear your answer, I don't remember ignoring it in the past.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Go for it... I'd like to hear your answer, I don't remember ignoring it in the past.

An answer to your question?

Anybody who believes that it is important to live by the standards you're holding others to. Anyone who believes in leading by example. Anyone who doesn't appreciate hypocrisy. Google 'Al Gore, Hypocrisy' and it becomes apparent that a great many care including; ABC News, USA Today, digg.com, Fox News, Newshounds, MSNBC, You Tube contributors, and a host of other blogs and op eds from numerous sources and those that frequent them.

After all, it can't only be threads about the hypocrisy of those you don't like can it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Go for it... I'd like to hear your answer, I don't remember ignoring it in the past.

First you have to understand a few premises (these are things which most people simply find intuitive, but apparently you don't):
1. No one can be an expert on everything, but some people are experts on some things.
2. People who care a lot about a thing are more likely to do their homework and therefore be experts on that thing
3. Given (1), there are a large number of topics that any one person might wish to make decisions about, but can never be an expert on. But we can ask the experts for the cliffs notes. This is how we make a large number of our decisions.
4. Given (2), one way we can identify experts to inform us is by judging how much they care about an issue.

Gore has established himself as an expert about climate change, based in no small part on his apparent persoanl commitment to the issue. He has also done his homework on the issue, for the past several decades, and also put his personal reputation on the line over it many times over. If anyone in the world should truly care about climate change, it's him. He probably knows what "should" be done about it more than any particular MacNN member or any oen we're likely to meet in person. If Gore doesn't care enough about this issue to eat his own dogfood, after all the homework he's done, it is a strong indication to the rest of us that the cliffs notes of this issue will be that it didn't matter that much after all.

Let me address what I know will be your response: that so Gore can be ignored, but the rest of the experts can't.
If Gore is revealed as a plain old greedy liar, or an idiot, or a crazy person, yes maybe we can just forget we ever knew him and take the issue as it would have been otherwise. But that's not what's happening, Gore's not being a general liar or idiot or crazy person. He's still a perfectly rational person, as far as we can tell. So his influence on this issue doesn't just get withdrawn, it gets inverted. He still knows what he's doing, by all accounts. His positive example can get people convinced, and by the same token his negative example can get people convinced the other way. He's still and expert, and his actions give expert testimony that climate change is not important enough to inconvenience you in your daily life.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

An answer to your question?

Anybody who believes that it is important to live by the standards you're holding others to. Anyone who believes in leading by example. Anyone who doesn't appreciate hypocrisy. Google 'Al Gore, Hypocrisy' and it becomes apparent that a great many care including; ABC News, USA Today, digg.com, Fox News, Newshounds, MSNBC, You Tube contributors, and a host of other blogs and op eds from numerous sources and those that frequent them.

After all, it can't only be threads about the hypocrisy of those you don't like can it?

That is indeed an answer, and the answer I was expecting, but it doesn't fully satisfy the question of "who cares"?

Okay, you think Gore is a hypocrite... How does this really matter much anyway? Why is this a bigger deal than what one thinks about any other celebrity? Like I said, there are many more people other than Al Gore who are championing and believe strongly in the same underlying environmental causes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

First you have to understand a few premises (these are things which most people simply find intuitive, but apparently you don't):
1. No one can be an expert on everything, but some people are experts on some things.
2. People who care a lot about a thing are more likely to do their homework and therefore be experts on that thing
3. Given (1), there are a large number of topics that any one person might wish to make decisions about, but can never be an expert on. But we can ask the experts for the cliffs notes. This is how we make a large number of our decisions.
4. Given (2), one way we can identify experts to inform us is by judging how much they care about an issue.

Gore has established himself as an expert about climate change, based in no small part on his apparent persoanl commitment to the issue. He has also done his homework on the issue, for the past several decades, and also put his personal reputation on the line over it many times over. If anyone in the world should truly care about climate change, it's him. He probably knows what "should" be done about it more than any particular MacNN member or any oen we're likely to meet in person. If Gore doesn't care enough about this issue to eat his own dogfood, after all the homework he's done, it is a strong indication to the rest of us that the cliffs notes of this issue will be that it didn't matter that much after all.

Let me address what I know will be your response: that so Gore can be ignored, but the rest of the experts can't.
If Gore is revealed as a plain old greedy liar, or an idiot, or a crazy person, yes maybe we can just forget we ever knew him and take the issue as it would have been otherwise. But that's not what's happening, Gore's not being a general liar or idiot or crazy person. He's still a perfectly rational person, as far as we can tell. So his influence on this issue doesn't just get withdrawn, it gets inverted. He still knows what he's doing, by all accounts. His positive example can get people convinced, and by the same token his negative example can get people convinced the other way. He's still and expert, and his actions give expert testimony that climate change is not important enough to inconvenience you in your daily life.

Thank you!

This is a well-reasoned explanation, and you bring up many good points. I had not really thought about it this way, that people might become turned off the issue when they observe the actions of somebody like Gore...

Perhaps this is true, but I've never really cared about the silly beliefs and things that irrational people will think/do. I'm sure there are those out there that emphatically think that orange juice makes you gay, and all sorts of other crazy things.

What I do care about is if these people become influential in their own right in a way that is destructive to the cause I care about, and I just don't think that "Gore is a hypocrite" gives them much leverage to affect a lot of people when it comes to persuading people against environmental causes.

For me, somebody like Gore simply functions as somebody who might lead people to the trough, but it is up to the people to learn for themselves what they are drinking, and whether or not they want to drink the water they are drinking. He, just like somebody like Michael Moore, are simply door openers in our own thinking.

Like I said, your reasons seem valid though. One more question though: do you honestly believe that all of anti-global warming bluster and chest thumping that has gone around here is at all due to the role Gore has played? If so, it's no wonder these debates never go anywhere.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is indeed an answer, and the answer I was expecting, but it doesn't fully satisfy the question of "who cares"?

Wrong. It more than satisfactorily answers the question. All you're really saying is that you don't care.


Who cares?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wrong. It more than satisfactorily answers the question. All you're really saying is that you don't care.


Who cares?

You are welcome to continue caring, but until I hear a rational reason of your own (if different than Uncle Skeleton's), I'll just continue to believe that you have none.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You are welcome to continue caring, but until I hear a rational reason of your own (if different than Uncle Skeleton's), I'll just continue to believe that you have none.

Believe what you want. You asked "who cares". You claimed you were genuinely interested in understanding. I answered and you reply to me with "You're welcome to continue caring..." ??? As for me personally, I couldn't possibly care less about global warming. It is mildly entertaining to poke fun at the snake oil salesman in need of his own cure.

BTW, we're on page 17 now. If you haven't found what you're looking for by now yet continue to pop in here, don't point at me for lacking reason.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Believe what you want. You asked "who cares". You claimed you were genuinely interested in understanding. I answered and you reply to me with "You're welcome to continue caring..." ??? As for me personally, I couldn't possibly care less about global warming. It is mildly entertaining to poke fun at the snake oil salesman in need of his own cure.

BTW, we're on page 17 now. If you haven't found what you're looking for by now yet continue to pop in here, don't point at me for lacking reason.

I've remaining subscribed to this thread, watching it on the periphery hoping that some rational and sound justification for it might emerge. 17 pages later, and Uncle Skeleton's justification is all that has satisfied me so far.

Oh well, I guess I'll never fully understand our celebrity obsession.

[BadKosh]

I don't think of Gore as an expert. More of a fanboy. He is parroting catch phrases and all, but where is HIS scientific work? His Degrees are in what? His movie was a typical "Michael Moore wannabe" style Propaganda piece, where much of his facts have been corrected, or expanded on to illustrate the movies flaws.

As long as the data collected is questionable because of the methods used,
and the attitudes of those who use these data show
that they are going along with heavy use of unreliable data and processes to make absolute claims,
all while being unable to make their scientific models work (again, due to faulty data and methods)
I don't have any respect for them or their 'science'

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For me, somebody like Gore simply functions as somebody who might lead people to the trough, but it is up to the people to learn for themselves what they are drinking

How is it you think they're going to do that learning? Do you honestly think each person is going to read and understand the primary literature? Because if you do you're dreaming. No one has time (or even access) to the primary literature for all issues. For any particular issue, nearly all people will have to defer to a summary of the issue by experts. And Gore's behavior is part of that summary. If his actions say that he doesn't think climate change is a threat, that's another summary.

Like I said, your reasons seem valid though. One more question though: do you honestly believe that all of anti-global warming bluster and chest thumping that has gone around here is at all due to the role Gore has played?

Um, do you really think the loudest mouths in this forum are ever convinced on any issue? It's the extremes you notice, but it's the moderates that swing the issues. "All?" no. "chest thumping?" no. But that doesn't mean it's not a significant part of the issue.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How is it you think they're going to do that learning? Do you honestly think each person is going to read and understand the primary literature? Because if you do you're dreaming. No one has time (or even access) to the primary literature for all issues. For any particular issue, nearly all people will have to defer to a summary of the issue by experts. And Gore's behavior is part of that summary. If his actions say that he doesn't think climate change is a threat, that's another summary.

There is still a lot of literature available outside of scientific papers.

Somehow, many people manage to formulate their own opinions regarding health or the Bush administration that have countered Michael Moore's. This is likely because there is no shortage of editorialization and mainstream reporting on our health care system and the Bush administration. The same applies to global warming. Gore is far from being a monopoly on this information.

You'll notice that Fahrenheit 911 did not result in Bush being pushed out of office in 2004, even though this documentary was a part of our collective conscious just like an Inconvenient Truth is/was. People have their own emotional investment towards various issues, and unlike in years past where information came from a handful of sources, it is now quite fragmented. We get our information (or what we think is information) from a hugely diverse source. Al Gore or Michael Moore is just one of these (albeit influential) sources.

[Kevin]

There were many people pushed against bush because of MM's dishonest movies. They didn't know any better. They were told it was the truth!

Anyone that defends Moore I have no respect for. Michael Moore isn't a respectable person. He doesn't care about the country, or even the world. Just the lining in his pockets. Bashing Bush and shilling it to those rabid anti-Bushies is BIG BUSINESS.

The only people you see supporting Moore are hardcore lefties that don't care if it's true or not, and those that simply don't know any better.

Moore's "movies" are about as accurate and true as the Alien Autopsy tapes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is still a lot of literature available outside of scientific papers.

Like what? Keep in mind we're supposed to be talking about things that the average person is able and interested in reading and drawing their conclusions from.

We get our information (or what we think is information) from a hugely diverse source. Al Gore or Michael Moore is just one of these (albeit influential) sources.

Exactly what I'm saying: Gore is one of our sources. What's wrong with talking about him?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Like what? Keep in mind we're supposed to be talking about things that the average person is able and interested in reading and drawing their conclusions from.

The environment is one of our national issues du jour right now. Search global warming on the NYTimes, any TV news outlet, any news website. Like I said, Gore does not monopolize this discourse or information.

Exactly what I'm saying: Gore is one of our sources. What's wrong with talking about him?

The same reason why it would be boring to dissect Michael Moore's character, Bill O'Reilly's character, Dan Rather's character, or the character of anybody else that is involved in expressing opinions about political issues. It makes for sometimes interesting celebrity gossip, but that's about it, and indeed these people are all celebrities and flawed and hypocritical in their own ways. Being celebrities, some people care about how they got to work, who they are sleeping with, and what they are wearing... Being celebrities, they are not actually involved in coming up with this information, but are simply people that exploit our obsession with them to draw attention to issues. We are just as capable of digesting the same information they do and formulating our own opinions, they are no more experts than any of us could be simply by cracking open a few books or websites.

I don't understand this obsession when what seems like a meatier line of discussion is what Al Gore (and other environmentalists) are actually saying rather than their personal character.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The environment is one of our national issues du jour right now. Search global warming on the NYTimes, any TV news outlet, any news website. Like I said, Gore does not monopolize this discourse or information.

ebuddy just gave those as evidence and you scoffed at them!

The same reason why it would be boring to dissect Michael Moore's character

Ah, it's not about his character (though that is a side bonus for those who were always determined to be against this issue). It's about his issue. He's disregarding his issue. If it was just about him being a bad father or being fat and slovenly or going to the club with no pants on or getting a DUI then I'd agree with you. But it's about him acting against the issue, and we all know he knows what's at stake. If he knows what's at stake and he acts against it anyway, it tells us that what's at stake isn't really that much.

Bill O'Reilly's character, Dan Rather's character, or the character of anybody else that is involved in expressing opinions about political issues.

No, it's different. Gore is a one-issue public figure. He has education on the issue (I forget what, but some), he's been focusing on it since before he was VP, and he's completely one-sided on it. He's dedicated, or so it seems.

[BadKosh]

Wouldn't it be better to talk about the "data" and where it's coming from.
The theories, and the problems with the theories.
The measurements of materials, and the data derived from it.

HOW those pieces of data are interpreted.
What is known about Climatology, vs what is unknown.
The computer models/simulations and why they don't seem to be working.

Seems we KNOW that Gore isn't a source of factual data, but a lefty pushing his agenda.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

ebuddy just gave those as evidence and you scoffed at them!

Huh? eBuddy was referring to news outlets that are concerned with Gore's personal life/character, I was referring to news outlets that are covering the story of global warming.

Ah, it's not about his character (though that is a side bonus for those who were always determined to be against this issue). It's about his issue. He's disregarding his issue. If it was just about him being a bad father or being fat and slovenly or going to the club with no pants on or getting a DUI then I'd agree with you. But it's about him acting against the issue, and we all know he knows what's at stake. If he knows what's at stake and he acts against it anyway, it tells us that what's at stake isn't really that much.

How is this about his issue? I just don't get it. It sounds like it's about Gore being hypocritical, but that doesn't nullify what he is saying because, like I said, he is one of many saying the same stuff. Does Christianity become invalid because some priest has sex with a little boy or something?

No, it's different. Gore is a one-issue public figure. He has education on the issue (I forget what, but some), he's been focusing on it since before he was VP, and he's completely one-sided on it. He's dedicated, or so it seems.

He does seem to have a lot of knowledge about the issue, but at the end of the day he is just somebody that has researched this issue. He is not a scientist, his power does not lie with shaping raw scientific information. His power is with shaping policy and our interpretation of this scientific information as it relates to public policy. To that end, he is very powerful, but like Michael Moore or anybody else, he is also a guy with an opinion, just like any of us.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Wouldn't it be better to talk about the "data" and where it's coming from.
The theories, and the problems with the theories.
The measurements of materials, and the data derived from it.

HOW those pieces of data are interpreted.
What is known about Climatology, vs what is unknown.
The computer models/simulations and why they don't seem to be working.

Seems we KNOW that Gore isn't a source of factual data, but a lefty pushing his agenda.

Yes, it would be!

I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of Gore, I like him okay, but that doesn't matter a whole lot. We've beaten the dead horse which is putting Gore under a microscope and dissecting his character long enough already. I would like to return to talking about global warming.

Like I said, you guys can talk about whatever you want, I don't care, but it does seem prudent to stimulate further discussion beyond this. It is easy to become so fixated on one thing that we lose track of another, ultimately far more important thing.

[besson3c]

Maybe we could combine the Michael Moore and Al Gore threads into a single one? They seem very similar

[Uncle Skeleton]

edit: slow "post" button

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Huh? eBuddy was referring to news outlets that are concerned with Gore's personal life/character, I was referring to news outlets that are covering the story of global warming.

But they're the same outlets. If they disagree with you (like they say Gore's actions are important), they're trash, but if they agree (like like they say climate change is important) then they're legit?

How is this about his issue? I just don't get it. It sounds like it's about Gore being hypocritical, but that doesn't nullify what he is saying because, like I said, he is one of many saying the same stuff. Does Christianity become invalid because some priest has sex with a little boy or something?

1, it's not "nullify," this isn't a binary black/white argument. He's just one source, more influential than most others (more for example than any one scientist, because he pools the results of all scientists and he spearheads the topic of what the public is supposed to do about it).
2, again, it's not about character. It's like a priest doing something that demonstrates he doesn't believe in Christianity. Except that Gore is pretty much the foremost figure of the movement, so it would be like the Pope giving testimony that God doesn't exist, or that Christianity in general is a sham.

I know, the word "hypocrisy" is confusing you, because it implies the problem is Gore's character. That's just a pot shot from those who want to sling mud. The problem is that when what he's hypocritical about is the issue itself, it reveals more than his character, it reveals something about his opinion of the issue.

His power is with shaping policy and our interpretation of this scientific information as it relates to public policy.

yes...

To that end, he is very powerful, but like Michael Moore

what? since when has Michael Moore in any way been involved with public policy? Michael Moore's commentary style has always been about revenge, not about policy.

or anybody else, he is also a guy with an opinion, just like any of us.

No, I still say he's an expert. He doesn't really have any job to do besides this, it's his whole life. He's not "just like any of us."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Wouldn't it be better to talk about the "data" and where it's coming from.

Um, I asked you to do that 2 weeks ago and you couldn't come up with any data. Do you have some now?

[besson3c]

Skeleton, I see your point. *I* would be a hypocrite if I continued this debate with you on a subject I don't really care much about, so let's leave it at that.

I will say that while I've said several posts back that you have a legitimate reason to be on Gore's case, most other posts I've ever seen on this issue have just been from people whining about Gore's character in unfocused rants about how he's a horrible lefty (just like most others), and that he just has this nefarious agenda to control corporate American and destroy our economy in the process. This grows tiresome, because these sorts of posters rarely, if ever, make a valid case out of their Gore rants. Moreover, they are often tied to discrediting the issue of global warming as a whole in a way that I usually feel is irrational (not that there aren't rationale ways to discredit the issue).

At least you have a legitimate reason to have a problem with Gore's behavior out of what I'm assuming is your concern for having this issue properly addressed without these sorts of "distractions". Is this right?

[BadKosh]

OK, Skeleton sir...


Why are the climate models not working? Aren't these supposed to 'prove' the points?
I have talked with a NASA Planetary atmospheres scientist, and he states that they don't even know what part CLOUDS play in any of this. He further said that political BS aside, that the factual data isn't here yet. The methods are still being worked on, so that secondary evidence from cores, fossils etc match known data. He goes to the monthly meetings with OTHER scientists too, and they DO discuss many aspects but other than the political hack at the Institute, the rest are looking to external sources (Sun etc) as the main reason driving this warming cycle.

So in that the DATA itself seems to be vaporware and ASSUMPTIONS and early conclusions are used in place, Their ISN'T ANY DATA that suggests anything but a natural changing climate, and levels of gasses going up and down, and the amount of radiation from the sun going up and down, and the jet streams changing because of sea temperatures, and the slow separation from the various continents due to drift of the plates.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Why are the climate models not working?

What makes you think they're not working?

Aren't these supposed to 'prove' the points?

I don't really know what that means, but I suspect the answer is no. Models don't generally "prove" things. They often predict things, but I've never seen a climate model prediction for anything that would have happened already.

I have talked with a NASA Planetary atmospheres scientist, and he states that...

Ok, the reason "appeal to an unnamed authority" is considered a fallacy is because there are any number of points where this communication can break down, and you might not ever even know it. This guy might not have the credentials he tells you he has, he might not be as smart as you think he is, he might have an agenda, he might be biased, he might be telling you a joke or being sarcastic, or you might simply have misunderstood his words over the phone. Then there's the whole quagmire of your bias when you heard him, or the fact that you might be exaggerating your encounter with him. We have no way of knowing, or double- or even single-checking this source of yours. Is it more reliable than the blog you posted earlier? Because that turned out to be completely unfounded.

I mean, I know you're convinced. I want to be convinced. And to do that you have to substantiate your claims with something that's not an appeal to an unnamed authority.

[BadKosh]

Well, let me work backwards....

Why do YOU think Man is responsible for global warming, and that it's NOT a natural cycle?
Tell me why you trust the data used to make your conclusions.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't; I'm on the fence. But from the vantage point of the fence, I see that the AGW side has lots of data, graphs, peer-reviewed studies, and objective language, while the anti-AGW side has lots of hearsay, unsubstantiated accusations, and bitter spiteful subjective language.

If you need something to attack in order to present evidence, use the IPCC report. Please present documented evidence that can be double-checked. Not right-wing blogs and not your personal assurances of your personal communications with unnamed parties. Please think of this as an opportunity to supply me with resources I can reference for when I go to some other website and try to argue against AGW. In general, this is a good thought exercise for any argument, it helps you to rely only on the best evidence.

[Buckaroo]

I hate those PETA wackos just as much as Al Gores lies. But I have to laugh when Peta goes after the Gore.

Activists take Al Gore to task on his diet - Telegraph

Come on Al, give up your burger for the environment. hahahahaha

When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month, protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian? Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".

The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.

"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

W
Seems we KNOW that Gore isn't a source of factual data, but a lefty pushing his agenda.

It's not the truth that matters. You should know this by now. But the importance of the accusations!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe we could combine the Michael Moore and Al Gore threads into a single one? They seem very similar

They both only care about Number 1. And feeding their pocket. In that way, I agree.

After all, there is big money to be made in "Global warming"

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I hate those PETA wackos just as much as Al Gores lies. But I have to laugh when Peta goes after the Gore.

Activists take Al Gore to task on his diet - Telegraph

Come on Al, give up your burger for the environment. hahahahaha

When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month, protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian? Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".

The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.

"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.

In this day and age Global Warming scare is used and blamed on anything these hippies want to stop. Big business, eating meat, etc. All ultra-left wing pro socialist ideals. These same people are the ones pushing global warming on people. What a better way to get someone to stop doing what you deem harmful than by scaring them with FUD.

[BadKosh]

Skeleton sir...


Your phrase "I see that the AGW side has lots of data, graphs, peer-reviewed studies, and objective language" begs me to ask....

"Data, and graphs" - (made from the data) and "Objective language" (phrasing and lack of certain words would also make it seem objective, while still being propaganda).

still begs the question as to the methods. Sure, these scientists have seen the data, checked the data within the scope of the formulas and methods to verify the results. So..what if the formulas are wrong? what if the methods of deriving data is wrong? Wouldn't that disqualify any assumptions, conclusions and course of action?

BTW - my friends and associates do not wish to be the center of attention within the global warming debate, as they are primarily involved in the Jovian systems weather. They are qualified scientists who teach advanced subjects at the university level. I am not to disclose their ID, but can discuss what their groups have discussed in a vague way. Sorry if this disqualifies my source.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"Data, and graphs" - (made from the data) and "Objective language" (phrasing and lack of certain words would also make it seem objective, while still being propaganda).

And peer review. Peer review doesn't mean they're right (hence, why I'm still on the fence), but it does mean they've earned the benefit of the doubt, which is a lot better than your unsubstantiated accusations and your "what if" stories have. You're certainly free to demonstrate exactly what they did wrong, and in fact that's why they're required to publish their methods. I would be very eager to see you do that.

BTW - my friends and associates do not wish to be the center of attention within the global warming debate, as they are primarily involved in the Jovian systems weather. They are qualified scientists who teach advanced subjects at the university level. I am not to disclose their ID, but can discuss what their groups have discussed in a vague way. Sorry if this disqualifies my source.

But if they have a leg to stand on then they can lead you to some evidence for you to support your case with. Otherwise, all you have to go on is their word, and all I have to go on is your word, and all someone I try to talk to has to go on is my word, and that sir is not science, that's a game of telephone. Surely you can see the problem with that, and how it would be better if all of us had some concrete data to refer to.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And peer review. Peer review doesn't mean they're right (hence, why I'm still on the fence), but it does mean they've earned the benefit of the doubt, which is a lot better than your unsubstantiated accusations and your "what if" stories have.

IMO, this statement seems to suggest that scientists who've published data that challenges "man-made" hype have not enjoyed peer-review which as you know is not true.

It's entirely possible that this has been mentioned somewhere in this 17-page thread, but just in case;

A study funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson Institute board member, without any corporate contributions analyzed peer-reviewed literature published by over 500 scientists that directly challenges at least one aspect of man-made global warming. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate. Among these is evidence that about 70% of the earth's warming after 1850 came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net warming total since 1940 is 0.2 degrees C.

Physical evidences published with little fanfare include oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.

If one is truly interested (i.e. give it a read and let me know what you think) they could verify the sources of this peer-reviewed collection of scientists that when you think of it, kind of makes the "consensus" argument a little hard to swallow IMO.

Unstoppable Global Warming

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"...all you have to go on is their word, and all I have to go on is your word, and all someone I try to talk to has to go on is my word, and that sir is not science, that's a game of telephone. Surely you can see the problem with that, and how it would be better if all of us had some concrete data to refer to.

Agreed.

YOU have to believe the word of a group of scientists(of the same political mindset)
that the information was arrived at correctly.
They had to believe that the samples were tested correctly,
and the results recorded correctly,
and the formulas were correctly used.

This isn't science by the time it reaches you either.

[Buckaroo]

Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears...

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears - Press Release

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears...

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears - Press Release

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Just posted above Badkosh.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Agreed.

YOU have to believe the word of a group of scientists(of the same political mindset)
that the information was arrived at correctly.
They had to believe that the samples were tested correctly,
and the results recorded correctly,
and the formulas were correctly used.

This isn't science by the time it reaches you either.

Unfortunately, scientists don't publish their methods, data, results and conclusions in scientific journals for anyone interested in the subject to look at. We have to take everything they say on faith. Furthermore, other scientists can't recreate or modify their experiments. We have only to believe them.

[Warren Pease]

They seem to be arguing for cyclicity - which I doubt you'll find few opponents for on either side of the debate.

I liked this quote:

"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

I could understand if they said "anthropogenic global warming", even plain old "global warming", but "Greenhouse Theory"? Um, okay.

Trees, bears, birds and humans are all fine so everything must be okay. If you're looking for everything to trend exactly the same way, you are going to be disappointed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

I could understand if they said "anthropogenic global warming", even plain old "global warming", but "Greenhouse Theory"? Um, okay.

Um... yeah. That's what the theory is called.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Sci...240..293R

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just posted above Badkosh.

You are right, I apologize. I was in a hurry and glanced for the number 500 and didn't see it.

I did include the link though.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Um... yeah. That's what the theory is called.

So, the idea that certain gasses can retain heat in the atmosphere is now being called into question? This is the basis that GW and subsequently AGW are built upon.

I thought scientists had long established that w/o greenhouse gases (and the Greenhouse Theory) that life would be nearly impossible as we know it; the average global temperature would be about 33C lower than it is now w/o them...

Has the research in the past 20 years since that article proven this idea wrong?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, this statement seems to suggest that scientists who've published data that challenges "man-made" hype have not enjoyed peer-review which as you know is not true.

A study funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson Institute board member, without any corporate contributions...

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Gl...742&sr=1-1

Since when does amazon.com count as peer review? </rimshot>

Seriously though, by all that I can tell, Wallace O. Sellers is a Natural Gas company executive, the Hudson Institute is one of the leading conservative think tanks with a pro-industry anti-environment agenda, and this document for sale at amazon is just a way to rile up their loyal conservative base and make a buck off them at the same time.

I'd be happy to see some of these examples of peer-reviewed studies challenging "man-made" hype, but I'm certainly not going to pay Wallace O. Sellers for the list. Is there any indication this list is real, or references to any of the papers on it?

ebuddy, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that often times the language of actual scientific discoveries is much more tame and reserved than the language of those partisan characters who try to include it in lists that supposedly support their cause...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

So, the idea that certain gasses can retain heat in the atmosphere is now being called into question? This is the basis that GW and subsequently AGW are built upon.

No, the predicted changes during the next few decades founded upon the theory and man's contribution in upsetting the equilibrium is what is being challenged by published, peer-reviewed data.

Has the research in the past 20 years since that article proven this idea wrong?

No in fact, I'd argue that it's entirely possible the past 20 years' research has uncovered much data about the cyclical nature of global climate change and like many other things, has been hijacked by political interests.

[Buckaroo]

Socialism
By: Clint, Thu, 13 Sep 200711:59:16 GMT

Global warming and the myth that humans are somehow responsible for destroying God's creation are simply the last attempts of a, thankfully, dying breed of person: socialists. Angry, disappointed, and truly surprised that their great experiments in socialism in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba were proven to be failures, giving rise, not to the best in human nature, but the very worst, and pathetically attached to this failed ideology, they are now trying to bring about their socialist reality through the myth of global warming. In the end, it all means the same thing -- the destruction of human innovation, the decline of free markets which spark creativity, and the erosion of these people's greatest enemy: human freedom. These pitiful people must be stopped, but we can rejoice in knowing that the "true believers" are few and far between and they are aging. Our hope lies in the young who, we pray, are smart and clever enough to see through the lies.

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears - Press Release

[Uncle Skeleton]

Dear Buckaroo:
That was already posted twice on this page, once by you. What gives?
Sincerely,
Uncle Skeleton