Gore at it again

[B. Max]

Another one of Gore's ballons shot down the minute it left the ground. It's not much wonder he won't debate anyone. He be laughed right out of the debate.

http://www.georgereisman.com/blog/

[ScottSA]

Another one of Gore's ballons shot down the minute it left the ground. It's not much wonder he won't debate anyone. He be laughed right out of the debate.

http://www.georgereisman.com/blog/

What a great blog! Thanks.

[B. Max]

Another one of Gore's ballons shot down the minute it left the ground. It's not much wonder he won't debate anyone. He be laughed right out of the debate.

http://www.georgereisman.com/blog/

What a great blog! Thanks.

You're most welcome.

[Mad_Michael]

Another one of Gore's ballons shot down the minute it left the ground. It's not much wonder he won't debate anyone. He be laughed right out of the debate.

http://www.georgereisman.com/blog/

I find it interesting that the crux of US critique of global warming theory is predicated upon attacking Al Gore.

Even if you prove that Al Gore is a complete idiot, moron, fool and/or anti-American, that doesn't change global warming theory one whit.

Though, apparently it is sufficient for US government policy. That is scary.

[ScottSA]

Another one of Gore's ballons shot down the minute it left the ground. It's not much wonder he won't debate anyone. He be laughed right out of the debate.

http://www.georgereisman.com/blog/

I find it interesting that the crux of US critique of global warming theory is predicated upon attacking Al Gore.

Even if you prove that Al Gore is a complete idiot, moron, fool and/or anti-American, that doesn't change global warming theory one whit.

Though, apparently it is sufficient for US government policy. That is scary.

It certainly affects the crediblity of something when its most visible proponents are obviously full of shit. The MMGW folks can howl about "big oil" funding the dissidents, but that tends to pale in comparison to the other side being flat out wrong.

[B. Max]

name='Mad_Michael' date='Jul 8 2007, 12:00 PM' post='235543']

.

Even if you prove that Al Gore is a complete idiot, moron, fool and/or anti-American, that doesn't change

global warming theory one whit.

It's not hard to prove that Gore is an idiot when he himself is so cooperative. It's also more proof that man made global is based on junk science, misleading information, and outright lies.

[Guest coot]

It certainly affects the crediblity of something when its most visible proponents are obviously full of shit. The MMGW folks can howl about "big oil" funding the dissidents, but that tends to pale in comparison to the other side being flat out wrong.

Besides, for anonymous internet posters who have to contend with the entire credible scientific community telling them they haven't a clue, there's nothing left to do but to swift-boat. Perhaps it's time to start questioning why Gore was just a journalist in the Vietnam war.

[noahbody]

I'm still waiting for Gore to breakout in a chorus of "we've got trouble..." from The Music Man.

[ScottSA]

It certainly affects the crediblity of something when its most visible proponents are obviously full of shit. The MMGW folks can howl about "big oil" funding the dissidents, but that tends to pale in comparison to the other side being flat out wrong.

Besides, for anonymous internet posters who have to contend with the entire credible scientific community telling them they haven't a clue, there's nothing left to do but to swift-boat. Perhaps it's time to start questioning why Gore was just a journalist in the Vietnam war.

More like having to deal with the myth of "concensus," as if it has anything to do with scientific enquiry even if it were true.

[Guest coot]

More like having to deal with the myth of "concensus," as if it has anything to do with scientific enquiry even if it were true.

Not only is there consensus on global warming, there's consensus on how to spell "consensus." You can try and debate both all you want, but in both cases you wind up looking stupid.

[SkyhookJackson]

What if Gore is right? What if we could have stopped it . . . or slowed it down . . . and didn't? I'll be dead, so it doesn't make a difference to me, but many of you have children who will have children. Will the world still be habitable? Sometimes it seems that ALL conservatives believe one thing and ALL liberals believe the exact opposite, no matter what the subject. With so many reputable scientists convinced of global warming, it's a bit rash to assume they're all lefties with an ulterior motive of some kind (stocks in solar panels, maybe?). By the way, who the heck is George Reisman?

[Guest coot]

Sometimes it seems that ALL conservatives believe one thing and ALL liberals believe the exact opposite, no matter what the subject.

I'm a conservative and, having looked at the facts of climate change, can't fathom why anyone would consider it a partisan issue. Most people on the right have accepted the science. There are a few wingnuts out there from both sides of the political spectrum who believe in conspiracy theories and reject it as a socialist plot. They're mostly confined to anonymous posters on the internet though (and invariably they have about a Grade 3 level of grammar and spelling). No one with any credibility denies that climate change is happening.

[bush_cheney2004]

What if Gore is right? What if we could have stopped it . . . or slowed it down . . . and didn't?

So what if Gore may be right ? People get to make choices when it comes to killing babies, so why not get a choice in our "carbon footprint". Madonna, Live Earth concert mainliner, actually has a bigger carbon foortprint than Al Gore, which is already HUGE!

Climate change is a natural process....."anthropogenic forcing" is a pimple on a bull's ass.

[Guest coot]

Madonna, Live Earth concert mainliner, actually has a bigger carbon foortprint than Al Gore, which is already HUGE!

Climate change deniers also invariably ignore the point of such an event as Live Earth--that is, to promote awareness and encourage people to start making steps to change. Instead, they find the most vulnerable candidate for swiftboating they can find--in this case Madonna--because character assassination works best when the facts aren't in your favour. It's a pathetic mode of attack that is sadly killing the conservative movement in the U.S.

I hope to see a new, more positive conservativism rise out of Cheney and Rove's dead corpses in 2008.

[bush_cheney2004]

Climate change deniers also invariably ignore the point of such an event as Live Earth--that is, to promote awareness and encourage people to start making steps to change. Instead, they find the most vulnerable candidate for swiftboating they can find--in this case Madonna--because character assassination works best when the facts aren't in your favour. It's a pathetic mode of attack that is sadly killing the conservative movement in the U.S.

I hope to see a new, more positive conservativism rise out of Cheney and Rove's dead corpses in 2008.

So your brand of attack on American politics is somehow better? Dead corpses?

I have never denied "climate change"...I welcome it.

[B. Max]

Not only is there consensus on global warming, there's consensus on how to spell "consensus." You can try and debate both all you want, but in both cases you wind up looking stupid.

The debate is not about consensus just as consensus is not science. Nor is there any scientific proof of man made global warming or its evil twin man made climate change. There is however a consistent effort to manufacture such proof. Still peddled to this day as a center piece for man made global warming, it has been debunked over and over as outright fraud. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062806F

[B. Max]

What the ice tells us. It tells us we have found Mann's missing medieval warm period and little ice age.

We already knew, from history, that the edges of Greenland were so warm 1,000 years ago as to be farmed by early Viking settlers; then became so cold in the "little ice age" a couple of centuries later as to wipe out that culture; then fluctuated again. This was all before modern technology had managed to explode its first steam boiler.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/column...9e-779dfbaa572b

[ScottSA]

More like having to deal with the myth of "concensus," as if it has anything to do with scientific enquiry even if it were true.

Not only is there consensus on global warming, there's consensus on how to spell "consensus." You can try and debate both all you want, but in both cases you wind up looking stupid.

That's nice. And?

[ScottSA]

Sometimes it seems that ALL conservatives believe one thing and ALL liberals believe the exact opposite, no matter what the subject.

I'm a conservative and, having looked at the facts of climate change, can't fathom why anyone would consider it a partisan issue. Most people on the right have accepted the science. There are a few wingnuts out there from both sides of the political spectrum who believe in conspiracy theories and reject it as a socialist plot. They're mostly confined to anonymous posters on the internet though (and invariably they have about a Grade 3 level of grammar and spelling). No one with any credibility denies that climate change is happening.

Cute ad hominem. I can almost guarantee I've got more education than you, not bad spelling, and grammar that doesn't often send people shrieking from the room in auditory pain. "Rejecting" GW is hardly part of a "conspiracy theory," although apparently not being able to distinguish between Kyoto, global warming, and man-made global warming theories is not a mark of stirling intellect on your part. Let me educate you on the beliefs of the "wingnuts:"

Kyoto: socialist plot

Global warming: possible

Manmade Global warming: highly questionable, no consensus, no real science, dependent upon multi variant hypothesis in which even the first level of data is corrupted or unusable and the last level is untestable hypothetical modelling.

[JerrySeinfeld]

What if Gore is right? What if we could have stopped it . . . or slowed it down . . . and didn't? I'll be dead, so it doesn't make a difference to me, but many of you have children who will have children. Will the world still be habitable? Sometimes it seems that ALL conservatives believe one thing and ALL liberals believe the exact opposite, no matter what the subject. With so many reputable scientists convinced of global warming, it's a bit rash to assume they're all lefties with an ulterior motive of some kind (stocks in solar panels, maybe?). By the way, who the heck is George Reisman?

You haven't factored in the "x" factor on these poor scientists. What's the "x" factor? Simply, scientists who try to spurn debate or report different findings are slandered, ostracized and lose funding. It's career suicide to perpetrate research or debate on this issue contrary to the already "established consensus". In other words, the entire process, by it's very definition, is unscientific.

[Mad_Michael]

It certainly affects the crediblity of something when its most visible proponents are obviously full of shit. The MMGW folks can howl about "big oil" funding the dissidents, but that tends to pale in comparison to the other side being flat out wrong.

Besides, for anonymous internet posters who have to contend with the entire credible scientific community telling them they haven't a clue, there's nothing left to do but to swift-boat. Perhaps it's time to start questioning why Gore was just a journalist in the Vietnam war.

Yes, good point.

And Gore is fat and ugly. Therefore global warming doesn't exist.

[noahbody]

What if Gore is right? What if we could have stopped it . . . or slowed it down . . . and didn't? I'll be dead, so it doesn't make a difference to me, but many of you have children who will have children. Will the world still be habitable? Sometimes it seems that ALL conservatives believe one thing and ALL liberals believe the exact opposite, no matter what the subject. With so many reputable scientists convinced of global warming, it's a bit rash to assume they're all lefties with an ulterior motive of some kind (stocks in solar panels, maybe?). By the way, who the heck is George Reisman?

A few years ago, a similar post could have started "What if Bush is right?"

Both the Bush Administration and the GW environmentalists have used a similar approach to gain support - create mass hysteria by talking about danger and destruction and the need to act immediately or else. With this hysteria action is necessary, there is no time for debate. There is only one solution; the one that is currently on the table.

Gore is right that the earth is warming, but he is wrong to generate hysteria. Kyoto is a poor solution in any event.

[JerrySeinfeld]

What if Gore is right? What if we could have stopped it . . . or slowed it down . . . and didn't? I'll be dead, so it doesn't make a difference to me, but many of you have children who will have children. Will the world still be habitable? Sometimes it seems that ALL conservatives believe one thing and ALL liberals believe the exact opposite, no matter what the subject. With so many reputable scientists convinced of global warming, it's a bit rash to assume they're all lefties with an ulterior motive of some kind (stocks in solar panels, maybe?). By the way, who the heck is George Reisman?

A few years ago, a similar post could have started "What if Bush is right?"

Both the Bush Administration and the GW environmentalists have used a similar approach to gain support - create mass hysteria by talking about danger and destruction and the need to act immediately or else. With this hysteria action is necessary, there is no time for debate. There is only one solution; the one that is currently on the table.

Gore is right that the earth is warming, but he is wrong to generate hysteria. Kyoto is a poor solution in any event.

Good post - I totally agree.

Y2K is another good example...

[Mad_Michael]

A few years ago, a similar post could have started "What if Bush is right?"

Both the Bush Administration and the GW environmentalists have used a similar approach to gain support - create mass hysteria by talking about danger and destruction and the need to act immediately or else. With this hysteria action is necessary, there is no time for debate. There is only one solution; the one that is currently on the table.

Gore is right that the earth is warming, but he is wrong to generate hysteria. Kyoto is a poor solution in any event.

One small difference...

Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services.

Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion.

But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[Xman]

From the article: "It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth, which appears to make up for the thinness of the Martian atmosphere about 14 times over."

The density on Mars is 0.6% that of Earth. Temperature is directly related to atmospheric density. It's bloody cold on Mars for that reason. The argument above contains a false premise.

Smokers, too, are in denial that their habit will kill them. Why? To protect their need to smoke. What motivates the deniers of global warming?

Edited July 10, 2007 by Xman