Shady Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 This is a perfect example of what the global warming fanatics really mean about open and honest debate and discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 This is a perfect example of what the global warming fanatics really mean about open and honest debate and discussion. Argument by YouTube only convinces me if it points me to a more robust argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Argument by YouTube only convinces me if it points me to a more robust argument. This wasn't an argument, it was an illustration. An illustration of the continual shut-down of discussion and debate by the true believers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 10$ says the questioner was hogging the microphone and after repeated attempts to move on to other questions someone taped the result and blew it out context...to illustrate a point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 WOuldn't the people determined to destroy the planet through global warming more accurately deemed anti-global warming fascists? Though I think nihlist would me a more accurate ism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 WOuldn't the people determined to destroy the planet through global warming...Of course you are assuming that such an outcome is even remotely plausible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 This wasn't an argument, it was an illustration. An illustration of the continual shut-down of discussion and debate by the true believers. We don't need illustrations, we need dialectic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halfempty Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Uhm, aren't the vast majority of scientists who are actually studying this saying that global warming is highly probable? Moreover, the scientists saying that global warming is a fraud are slowly but surley shifting to the other side of the arguement, as I understand. I've read and watched many works that talk about how the earth goes through a natural cycle of heating up and cooling down (and other evidence debunking global warming), which seems possible to me, but at the end of the day i'll believe the side supported by the majority of scientists. Anyways, even if global warming isn't the catastrophe that Al Gore keeps whining about I still don't see what harm it can possibly do to invest more in alternative energy technologies and such; it will reduce pollution, lower dependence on fossil fuels, provide "green" jobs in the future, and so on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 We don't need illustrations, we need dialectic. Are you purposely being obtuse? They don't allow any reasonable discussion. Here's another example. Al Gore refuses to answer a question once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Are you purposely being obtuse? They don't allow any reasonable discussion. Here's another example. Al Gore refuses to answer a question once again. Are you afraid to respond to points with anything other than little TV clips ? I don't trust them, and the fact that you have to use illustrations, as you call them, highlights the shortcomings in your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Agreed, little tv clips tell us somewhere between nothing and worse than nothing. For example, I saw a brief clip of Rush Limbaugh a few years ago, and did y'all know he has Parkinson's Disease? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Are you afraid to respond to points with anything other than little TV clips ? No, not in this thread. There are a multitude of AGW threads already in existence, in which I and many others have provided detailed arguments. I simply wanted to illustrate the pro-AGW side, and their reluctance and refusal to actually discuss the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well, a clip of a security guard shutting somebody down does nothing to support that. As has been pointed out, we don't have balanced, we don't know what precipitated the event, why it happened, who made it happen etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well, a clip of a security guard shutting somebody down does nothing to support that. As has been pointed out, we don't have balanced, we don't know what precipitated the event, why it happened, who made it happen etc. etc. Well, we do have Al Gore refusing to answer the question. But anyhow, what about the first clip? It's context is all there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well, we do have Al Gore refusing to answer the question. But anyhow, what about the first clip? It's context is all there. Ok, let's get a response from the people who shut him down then we can see what it was about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 This is a perfect example of what the global warming fanatics really mean about open and honest debate and discussion. The article below (link)details Al Gore's very similar openness to debate. Indeed his artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming is quite similar to what was shown on the Youtube segment. Excerpts below (link): Will Al Gore Melt?By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG January 18, 2007; Page A16 Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune. The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened? One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change. *snip* He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts? *snip* Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Another example of the type of boorish behavior associated with AGW true believers. Filmmaker has object thrown at him during interview at Copenhagen. Come'on people, we need dialectic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yesterday Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Jumping in a little late again but here it is anyway... IMO the global warming craze for the most part is an agenda to help gain popularity for the global production tax hinted at in the Federal Counsel on Climate Change. Underlying long term issues of continued pollution are very real but not exactly in the way this platform suggests. Big pictures shows very little interest in reducing pollution across developed nations but aims to seriously inhibit undeveloped countries from following the same path to industrialization as its developed counterparts using infrastructure loans as bait (of course at astronomical interest figures of 35% amongst other ridiculous amounts), the funds for these loans of course collected from the various production taxes already collected across the developed nations and the many more on the round table being discussed. This combined with the growing scientific evidence of the fact that most of what we are experiencing today has happened many times before with absolutely no connection to pollution. Agenda, agenda, agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Jumping in a little late again but here it is anyway... IMO the global warming craze for the most part is ... Oh. It has nothing to do with the fact that temperatures are climbing, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 show me the unedited video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Oh. It has nothing to do with the fact that temperatures are climbing, then. Very little indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Little... ok, sure... If we found out aliens were attacking, there would be people who tried to use that to their advantage, I suppose. Politicans who would grandstand, corporations that would lobby for contracts, civil libertarian that would chafe at laws restricting freedom of association with the aliens. You know... I think I like this topic.. New thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yesterday Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Oh. It has nothing to do with the fact that temperatures are climbing, then. Your words not mine. Did you know that in the mid 1600s the English Channel and the North Sea froze up every winter for about a hundred years(just one example and I could post actual links to more). It was a weather anomaly, one of many different types that happen regularly all over the world. Just one reality of the strangeness of this world. I do not say that global emissions will not play havoc with our environment in the long run but the extent and urgency seems only to apply in media not in global mandates for pollution reduction and control. Why? Why would the government snowball us with fear and create hundreds of new taxes over nothing? Jeez, it's not like they've ever done this before. Dis-information/misrepresentation would have nothing to do with it. Heck, the war on Iraq is justified for pete's sake too. I don't know what I was thinking. Giggle...come on Michael you know as well as I know the realities of just about everything we are told, believe less than a quarter of what you hear and even less than that of what you see. You are a very articulate writer when you want to be, I enjoy most of your posts, put some meat on the table for us to really lick our chops over. My contribution to this pot-luck dinner is the FCCC, what are you bringing. PS This is not the first time in history that temperatures have climbed but it is the first time ever pollution has been the reason. Could it be that the effect of pollution might actually be minimal in regards to greenhouse gasses and that perhaps some of this might be due to the fact that we are in a phase of abnormally high radioactivity from our sun which is playing havoc with everything from temperatures around the world to satellite performance? My point is...fear sways the masses regardless of validity and most taxes have been legislated because of fear based acceptance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 My point is...fear sways the masses regardless of validity and most taxes have been legislated because of fear based acceptance. you have no foundation to support your assertions, particularly as you presume to (improperly) assess and make grandiose claims/suggestions in regards scientific foundation and the accompanying political/policy debate. out of the inordinate number of climate change related threads you chose to resurrect this beauty... quite telling... indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Your words not mine. Did you know that in the mid 1600s the English Channel and the North Sea froze up every winter for about a hundred years(just one example and I could post actual links to more). It was a weather anomaly, one of many different types that happen regularly all over the world. Just one reality of the strangeness of this world. I think I read about it in one of those science blogs that debunks fake theories on GW. I do not say that global emissions will not play havoc with our environment in the long run but the extent and urgency seems only to apply in media not in global mandates for pollution reduction and control. Why? I guess you have been living in a cave for 20+ years. The scientists believe that human activity is causing Global Warming, and that it could have adverse affects on us. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. PS This is not the first time in history that temperatures have climbed but it is the first time ever pollution has been the reason. Could it be that the effect of pollution might actually be minimal in regards to greenhouse gasses and that perhaps some of this might be due to the fact that we are in a phase of abnormally high radioactivity from our sun which is playing havoc with everything from temperatures around the world to satellite performance? My point is...fear sways the masses regardless of validity and most taxes have been legislated because of fear based acceptance. Hmmmm... could be... but it's not. Radioactivity is factored into the models by extremely bright people who devote their lives to determining the factors that cause warming. Do you not think they may have thought of that ? Your fear about gullibility of the masses may well be an example of the phenomenon of 'projection'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.