Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Al Gore - Convenient Liar - The Master of Hypocrisy

Al Gore - Convenient Liar - The Master of Hypocrisy (Page 25)
Thread Tools
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 11:03 AM
 
But isn't Al Gore the lesser evil, after all?

At least, Steve Jobs would say so.

But also many other people, after the catastrophic Bush, etc. etc. war debacle...!

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 11:30 AM
 
Is anyone really still taking Gore seriously now? Really?

Though he did just devalue having a Nobel Peace Prize. That doesn't mean as much anymore really.. Esp if Gore can get it for FUD.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 12:15 PM
 
Arafat, Nobel Peace prize winner?
45/47
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 12:39 PM
 
Yeah forgot about that. So much for the NPP.
     
Buckaroo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 01:18 AM
 
LiveLeak.com - Newsweek article predicts another ICE AGE!

Only 32 years ago, Newsweek warned of the coming Ice Age.





Newsweek article predicts another ICE AGE! - Post Media Reply
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases — all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Newsweek Magazine - The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975
( Last edited by Buckaroo; Dec 20, 2007 at 01:26 AM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 01:22 AM
 
Buckaroo's random article posting without a commentary reminds me of Abe... I wish Abe was still here, he was always fun!
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 01:58 AM
 
Let's see if anyone's learned anything from the n-teenth time this has been mentioned in these forums ... temps drop from 1945 to 1970, apparently concentrated around North America, Europe and the USSR. Why?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 03:18 AM
 
Hmm... don't people realize how much technology, science, and our understand of the world has advance since 1970?

How was your TV in 1970? What about your computer in 1970?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Let's see if anyone's learned anything from the n-teenth time this has been mentioned in these forums ... temps drop from 1945 to 1970, apparently concentrated around North America, Europe and the USSR. Why?
Same reason as for global warming now: evil scientists use weather machines to control the global climate in a mad power grab.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 03:10 PM
 
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmmmmbbb!
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Same reason as for global warming now: evil scientists use weather machines to control the global climate in a mad power grab.
Hey! Volcano lairs, large, slowly moving lasers, and torture devices for secret agents aren't cheap! They have to power grab or they can't pay for it.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 04:38 PM
 
The real money pit is sharks with frickin laser-beams on their heads
     
Buckaroo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 04:46 PM
 
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Same reason as for global warming now: evil scientists use weather machines to control the global climate in a mad power grab.
What about HAARP??

HAARP Home Page

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo's article
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic.
Lies. Patterson's been a well-known anthropogenic skeptic for years and years and years. Silly Inhofe.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 05:56 PM
 
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)
     
Buckaroo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 10:20 PM
 
The same wackos claimed the end of the world when 2000 came. The computers would all shut down causing total chaos. The problem is they are basing their claims on false information. NOTHING they are saying is true. Their claims are all built on a house of cards.

Lets start with the NUMBER ONE claim. Carbon Dioxide causes global warming. LIE!!!! The truth is, global warming causes increased Carbon Dioxide.




Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2007, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
The problem is they are basing their claims on false information.
...
The truth is, global warming causes increased Carbon Dioxide.
Wait, what? When they make assumptions they're wrong but when you do it you're right?

LIE!!!!
Sorry fellas, Buckaroo has the biggest font. He wins the argument. So Buck, where to next, my new internet hero? Teach me. I am as a blank slate awaiting your wisdom.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2007, 12:54 AM
 
Yep, Buckaroo tells me, on the basis of nothing in particular, that the entire scientific establishment is lying. OK, you've convinced me!
I'm betting that the world is flat, and the Moon landings faked?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2007, 12:58 AM
 
Buckaroo,

I think you should apply to become a writer for the Colbert Report.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2007, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Hmm... don't people realize how much technology, science, and our understand of the world has advance since 1970?

How was your TV in 1970? What about your computer in 1970?
Imagine what our TVs and computers will look like in 2044... when we're talking about global cooling again.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2007, 09:08 PM
 
Oh snap!
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2007, 10:37 PM
 
Could this all be happening due to the HEAT generated by computers? My G5 seems a little warm.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2007, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Could this all be happening due to the HEAT generated by computers? My G5 seems a little warm.
repair permissions. Zap PRAM.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2007, 01:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh snap!
ebuddy
     
Buckaroo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2007, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agree, that was hilarious.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2007, 04:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Imagine what our TVs and computers will look like in 2044... when we're talking about global cooling again.
     
ResearchMonkey
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2007, 08:53 AM
 


...allow me, If I may,

The Algore Global Warming Show..

     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2007, 12:47 AM
 
Well you certainly may, but as far as I'm concerned your post has contributed exactly nothing to this thread.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2007, 12:48 AM
 
I wonder how many more pages this will go? Maybe until these guys run out of random articles to post URLs to?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2007, 01:00 AM
 
Guys, the bottom line is this: there is not only a US scientific consensus for GW, but a global scientific consensus. Most (if not all) governments around the world accept the notion that GW is real, AFAIK.

You have a *lot* of work to do if you want to dispute all of these authorities as far as I'm concerned. No offense, but you posting a bunch of random articles doesn't do it for me, especially since we have a poster of our own (Greg) that has made a compelling case that you guys don't know what you are talking about and that he knows more about this stuff than you do.

So:

1) global scientific consensus
2) US scientific consensus
3) your own party accepting the notion that it exists
4) you don't even know more than the other posters here to make an airtight case

You have a lot of work to do if you want to do any convincing. Otherwise, maybe you can live with your truthiness, I can't. You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2007, 01:14 AM
 
Amen.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2007, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Guys, the bottom line is this: there is not only a US scientific consensus for GW, but a global scientific consensus. Most (if not all) governments around the world accept the notion that GW is real, AFAIK.
Most of the argument is not centered around GW, it's centered around AGW. There have been multiple attempts to frame this as an argument between "global warming deniers" and "climate change deniers" VS "scientific consensus" when few are challenging whether or not global climate changes or if it in fact is warming. Does this make an AGW proponent a "natural climate change denier"? Then, using "consensus" as a bully pulpit for some societal cause. What cause? Well, that's less than clear. What is clear is that there is more lobbying dollars coming from GE to protect their buy-up of credits than any of the "big-oils" combined. What is clear is that climate science is not an "either/or" scenario, but professional opinions on this matter fall on a continuum of certainty ranging from staunchly and vocally opposed to adamantly for, but this is not news-worthy. Scientists warn against hype. Scientists involved in the IPCC indicate failures of the panel. An increasing number of scientists are going on record as challenging the models and the leaps of conjecture formed from them, but we're still hearing about this alleged "consensus". How many scientists dissent before you lose "consensus"??? 100? 200? 400? 500? Got 'em. They're highlighted in a recent Senate report ranging from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming but you don't want to hear from them. They'll tell you things like; "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," They'll tell you that the consensus is actually one of criticism, skepticism, and doubt. Trust me, you'd want science no other way. I know, they're all connected to big oil. They're relegated holocaust deniers and flat-earthers. GE, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and all government entities interested in a new tax base are all concerned for mankind, but big oil and their coven of rogue scientists are bent on its destruction.

- saying "consensus" is not enough. Science doesn't work this way.
- 52 Scientists participated in the UNs IPCC summary. There is absolutely no consensus on AGW at all. Zilch.
- saying "big oil" is not enough. There are many on all sides of this issue with a substantial interest at stake.
- saying "graphs" without indicating the problems with them as expressed by other scientists is not enough.
- saying "they know more than you" when many who know more than you are tempering the hype is not enough.
- Discussing this issue with such a rigid degree of certainty is not scientific.

We'll enjoy it for another few years though no doubt.

You have a *lot* of work to do if you want to dispute all of these authorities as far as I'm concerned.
The good news is, I don't have to do "a lot" of work. Science does this. If you read science text at all you will quickly realize that these authorities dispute one another tirelessly. Uncertainty is woven throughout their text, but certainty seems to always make its way to the front page of popular media. They will haggle for months on one statement risking late publication of findings. They will haggle and bicker about the most minute details imaginable, but besson and greg are convinced. Whew. That cinches it.

No offense, but you posting a bunch of random articles doesn't do it for me, especially since we have a poster of our own (Greg) that has made a compelling case that you guys don't know what you are talking about and that he knows more about this stuff than you do.
I don't think he sufficiently illustrated this in my case. No offense taken. The "you don't know what you're talking about" bit is as frustrating as watching the blind lead the blind.

So:

1) global scientific consensus
We don't challenge consensus do we? If the establishment claims the earth is flat, it is so. Trust me, there is absolutely no consensus whatsoever and you don't want there to be. This is the bully-pulpit of the zealous.

2) US scientific consensus
The new establishment. What is the name for this establishment? Certainly, if there is this conclusive an actual consensus, they've come up with a name for themselves. BTW, "Papacy" has already been used.

3) your own party accepting the notion that it exists
"your own party"??? Is this another "either you're for us or you're against us" notion? I thought that was a bad thing. Only natural climate change deniers deal in absolutes.

4) you don't even know more than the other posters here to make an airtight case
... but the scientists who's articles are posted often do. What then? What is an "airtight case"? There are a lot of AGW proponents lobbying for more research grants, you may want to keep this whole "airtight" thing to yourself for now.

You have a lot of work to do if you want to do any convincing. Otherwise, maybe you can live with your truthiness, I can't. You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts.
Meh. I only wish the acceptance or denial of "facts" was an actual contributor to the fashionable presuppositions around here.
ebuddy
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2007, 05:26 PM
 
besson, "Most (if not all) governments around the world accept the notion that GW is real" has nothing to do with whether there is a scientific consensus or not. I guess you understand this but your post was unclear.

ebuddy, of course there is a consensus. The last time you tried to argue otherwise you ended up defending a guy who claimed smoking wasn't linked to cancer. And now you write, "They're relegated holocaust deniers and flat-earthers." Can you not see why? It is because 99% of the people arguing against global warming are flat-earthers, like the "scientist" you quoted, and then people like you can't tell the difference between a credible scientist and a hack. If you are dumb enough to cite a flat-earther as an authority, are you any better than a holocaust denier? (I've said this many times, but once more I don't find this lack of judgement surprising at all given your gullibility on Iraq.)

Of course there is that 1% still, although you are clearly incompetent to separate it out.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2007, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
ebuddy, of course there is a consensus.
There is no consensus at all.

The last time you tried to argue otherwise you ended up defending a guy who claimed smoking wasn't linked to cancer.
... and what of those defending a man who's record includes his mother singing him the "look for the union label" lullaby as a child knowing that Gore was 27 when the song came out? What does second-hand smoke have to do with anything other than a character assassination to cover an argument lacking any substance at all?

I never quoted anyone's health credentials??? We were talking about climatology and global climate science. At no time did I quote or defend anyone who did not have relevant credentials in this field of study. You can argue an ad hom all you want, but you're only showing us that this is all you've got in this debate.

And now you write, "They're relegated holocaust deniers and flat-earthers." Can you not see why? It is because 99% of the people arguing against global warming are flat-earthers, like the "scientist" you quoted, and then people like you can't tell the difference between a credible scientist and a hack. If you are dumb enough to cite a flat-earther as an authority, are you any better than a holocaust denier? (I've said this many times, but once more I don't find this lack of judgement surprising at all given your gullibility on Iraq.)
Senate report highlighting several hundred scientists on record challenging man-made global warming hype

So... "flat-earthers" and "holocaust deniers" might be all you've got, but science has a great deal more. I'm telling you that your ad homs do not constitute an argument, it's not scientific, and it doesn't display any better judgment on your part than someone who supports military action against a nation that caused 13 UN Resolutions and required action against him by three US Administrations.

Drop the insults and come up with an argument that has teeth already. This is getting old.

Of course there is that 1% still, although you are clearly incompetent to separate it out.
This is clearly all you've got. Welcome to the screaming crowd of zealots who are getting quieter every year. Why? Science. You should check it out some time.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2007, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
You mean the approximately ten scientists in that group, which was comprised of economists and others with no scientific training in climate change. See, I can paste and run just as well as you.

Climate Progress Blog Archive Inhofe recycles unscientific attacks on global warming, NYT’s Revkin gives him a pass
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2007, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You mean the approximately ten scientists in that group, which was comprised of economists and others with no scientific training in climate change.
Uh... no. He meant the Senate report highlighting several hundred scientists with very specific credentials related to climate science. You can post and run however you like and many do. The difference between good arguments and bad ones are those formed from the data in the posts as they are then educated opinions. Of course, the type of opinion that could only come from actually reading the link you're critiquing.

In this case it is patently clear you have decided to take the low road of intellectual dishonesty, instead of the high road of enlightened argumentation. Another exploited freedom around here.
ebuddy
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2007, 03:24 PM
 
Looking through those statements by the scientists (and yes I did read a whole bunch of it - whoever wrote that needs to get a better editor btw), I was hard pressed to find any statement or scientist that said that humans were not having an impact on our climate. The word 'hype' was not just thrown in there willy-nilly - if that's the contention, then I agree, there are people that over-hype the potential consequences, but that in no way proves the opposite - that there will be no consequences from global warming.

“Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
Take out one word and the statement completely changes.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2007, 10:18 PM
 
If it's not dangerous then what do we care really?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2007, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm telling you that your ad homs do not constitute an argument
If you put up an argument from authority, it's not an ad hom to cross-examine the credibility (or otherwise) of that authority. If he were making jabs at you personally, that would be an ad hom.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If you put up an argument from authority, it's not an ad hom to cross-examine the credibility (or otherwise) of that authority. If he were making jabs at you personally, that would be an ad hom.
I put up no such argument from authority on pathology. He cross examined this person's credentials related to pathology, then littered the post with ad homs. I'd of course welcome a relevant cross examination not littered with ad homs.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Looking through those statements by the scientists (and yes I did read a whole bunch of it - whoever wrote that needs to get a better editor btw), I was hard pressed to find any statement or scientist that said that humans were not having an impact on our climate. The word 'hype' was not just thrown in there willy-nilly - if that's the contention, then I agree, there are people that over-hype the potential consequences, but that in no way proves the opposite - that there will be no consequences from global warming.
Based on the above, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified to indicate where editing is necessary.

There is little by way of "proof" to suggest any of it really.
ebuddy
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I never quoted anyone's health credentials??? We were talking about climatology and global climate science. At no time did I quote or defend anyone who did not have relevant credentials in this field of study. You can argue an ad hom all you want, but you're only showing us that this is all you've got in this debate.
Is it an ad hom to argue against your source's credentials? Have you admitted that he isn't a credible source after all? If so, then I missed it, sorry. If not, then what are you waiting for?
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 06:23 PM
 
The world could easily be flat. None of the so-called 'proof' that it is round is conclusive, and there is debate among a group of lunatics about the 'facts' in this case.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Based on the above, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified to indicate where editing is necessary.
I'd have myself an editor iffing I were a Senator. I'm not, so I don't. That's all.

There is little by way of "proof" to suggest any of it really.
There is far more proof for it than against it. The basic physical laws for global warming have been known for over 100 years, before we had the capability to demonstrate any of it's relevance to global warming. The first order questions are largely answered, now science (the Senate Report included) are dealing with the specificities of the smaller questions.

Why worry about out this if it isn't dangerous? Unfortunately, we have Al Gore spouting out figures like 65 meters sea-level rise in the near-future (albeit thousands) is an easy target when compared with the more conservative figures available in the IPCC report.

Not to say that the smaller numbers are any less of a risk for those who live near sea-level though, for example. For those people 1 meter might as well be 65.

As I said before, though the effects of global warming will not be as dire (imo) as Mr. Gore claims, doesn't mean that there will be no effects from global warming.

Can't find the thread now, but it was talking about the importance of risks and whether a certain risk was worth mitigating. E.g. a 1:40,000 risk still has tangible effects when extrapolated to a population of millions, but would be nothing more than an anomoly for a smaller population.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
I'd have myself an editor iffing I were a Senator. I'm not, so I don't. That's all.
I wasn't saying you need an editor, but then I'm not sure I'm qualified to say so.

There is far more proof for it than against it. The basic physical laws for global warming have been known for over 100 years, before we had the capability to demonstrate any of it's relevance to global warming.
Right and those laws have generally been defined by natural phenomena.

The first order questions are largely answered, now science (the Senate Report included) are dealing with the specificities of the smaller questions.
First order questions included in the Senate Report such as;

"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." ~Dr. Antonio Zichichi

and...

Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon co-authored with Dr. Art Robinson and Noah Robinson, a November 2007 study that found mankind's emissions are not harming the atmosphere. The paper, published in journal of American physicians and Surgeons was titled, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The study reported: "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly in creased plant growth." The study also found, "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape."

Why worry about out this if it isn't dangerous?
That's a good question. In fact, one climatologist in the senate report by the name of Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University felt this way; "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid."

Unfortunately, we have Al Gore spouting out figures like 65 meters sea-level rise in the near-future (albeit thousands) is an easy target when compared with the more conservative figures available in the IPCC report.
I agree.

Not to say that the smaller numbers are any less of a risk for those who live near sea-level though, for example. For those people 1 meter might as well be 65.
Let's hope that's not the case. I've not seen any convincing ideas on how to stop it. Certainly, I will always monitor my consumption because I believe it's important.

As I said before, though the effects of global warming will not be as dire (imo) as Mr. Gore claims, doesn't mean that there will be no effects from global warming.
IMO, That's one of those first-order questions.

Can't find the thread now, but it was talking about the importance of risks and whether a certain risk was worth mitigating. E.g. a 1:40,000 risk still has tangible effects when extrapolated to a population of millions, but would be nothing more than an anomoly for a smaller population.
Risk is something that an insurance company uses to price your premiums. It's what the government may use to diminish or eliminate rights or freedoms. I like it when scientists are scientists, insurance salesmen are insurance salesmen, and politicians are politicians. I think we should be good stewards of our planet. I get a little more than concerned when I account for the amount of money, time, and media spent on anthropogenic global warming and the inherent manipulation that seems to envelope it. I'm just one of those more interested in global tensions warming. I think we can have a more profound effect on that than on global climate.
ebuddy
     
AngelaBaby
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 09:34 PM
 
It's all just a push to create a carbon tax. Sad but true.
     
Buckaroo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by AngelaBaby View Post
It's all just a push to create a carbon tax. Sad but true.
I agree. It's all a big scam.
     
Buckaroo  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2008, 11:32 AM
 
We are now in Global Cooling.

RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - A cold spell soon to replace global warming

Next year it'll be Global Stagnation. It's all a scam to get more money out of you the victim and lemming.

Continue to follow the scammers over the cliff.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2008, 12:07 PM
 
By gosh, you've convinced me.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,