Jump to content

Gore at it again


Recommended Posts

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.

At least Al gore did not make his tiny vietnam war service a centerpiece of his presidential candidacy.

John Kerry on the other hand lied and distorted over and over again about his short vietnam service.

Kerry swifboated himself by his own words and those who served with him and around him.

It is telling that you never did offer a rebuttal to the threads link.

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

When will you reply to the links article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Climate models as science.That is what you must say since the endgame of the alarmists have been built around it.

By the way can you tell us how you know that most of the people on the right accept the science?

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sunsettommy @ Jul 12 2007, 01:22 AM)

CO2 atmospheric gas has been higher than now just 50 years ago using a different method of measuring.

Methane no longer increasing and has not been for a few years.

Xman ask:

May I have a citation?

Answer that is based on a PUBLISHED paper:

180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods

Ernst-Georg Beck

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

April 13, 2007

Methane Matters

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ethane-matters/

Or:

Science vs. Gore on Methane

Volume 10, Number 16: 18 April 2007

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...10/N16/EDIT.jsp

Or:

Decreasing emissions of methane from rice agriculture

M.A.K. Khalila, , and M.J. Shearerb

aDepartment of Physics, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA

bEnvironmental Science and Resources Program, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA

Available online 8 July 2006.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...62973bff1206b32

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the planet is not warming? Why did they lie to us?

Who says the planet is not warming?

Why are you playing this merry go round with me?

Remember this post?

I am a long time skeptic and yet I long ago accepted that we have warming trend the last 100+ years.

People like you who say we deny warming are being dishonest.Hardly any skeptic I have come across actually say there NO warming at all.

It is the idea that the paltry amount of CO2 emissions by us are the main driver of warming.Is what we skeptics do not agree.

Next time stop your dishonest use of the phrase "deniers of global warming".It is a smear.

That was from post # 47.

You reply was ,............................................. well nothing really.You just ignored it and went on.

I am fast developing a negative opinion of you.

Edited by sunsettommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the planet is not warming? Why did they lie to us?

Who says the planet is not warming?

Why are you playing this merry go round with me?

Remember this post?

I am a long time skeptic and yet I long ago accepted that we have warming trend the last 100+ years.

People like you who say we deny warming are being dishonest.Hardly any skeptic I have come across actually say there NO warming at all.

It is the idea that the paltry amount of CO2 emissions by us are the main driver of warming.Is what we skeptics do not agree.

Next time stop your dishonest use of the phrase "deniers of global warming".It is a smear.

That was from post # 47.

You reply was ,............................................. well nothing really.You just ignored it and went on.

I am fast developing a negative opinion of you.

Actually, the world stopped warming in 1998 and has been getting cooler ever since. Another little tidbit your econazi zealots won't tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the planet is not warming? Why did they lie to us?

Who says the planet is not warming?

Why are you playing this merry go round with me?

Remember this post?

I am a long time skeptic and yet I long ago accepted that we have warming trend the last 100+ years.

People like you who say we deny warming are being dishonest.Hardly any skeptic I have come across actually say there NO warming at all.

It is the idea that the paltry amount of CO2 emissions by us are the main driver of warming.Is what we skeptics do not agree.

Next time stop your dishonest use of the phrase "deniers of global warming".It is a smear.

That was from post # 47.

You reply was ,............................................. well nothing really.You just ignored it and went on.

I am fast developing a negative opinion of you.

Actually, the world stopped warming in 1998 and has been getting cooler ever since. Another little tidbit your econazi zealots won't tell you.

Actually by the Satellite data it was year 2003 that the warming stopped.

Since 1998 the warming trend slowed to a crawl.

I help run a Global Warming Skeptic forum.So I know all about SURFACE weather reporting stations warming bias right at the measuring devices locations.This is before the UIE is factored in.By assumptions of course since they do not really know what level of warming bias is since they did not account for the built in warming bias right at the sensors themselves.

I simply hate dishonest postings that Xman has been posting in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

His refusal to debate is legendary. The article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Al Gore really believe in catastrophic global warming?

Since Al Gore was offered the opportunity (in person) to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 1 year, 6 months, 1 week, 3 days, 7 hours, 30 minutes, and 46 seconds have elapsed.

Petition online: Al Gore, Debate Global Warming

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” -- Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average (Tennessee Center for Policy Research)

http://www.petitiononline.com/agdgw/petition.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the world stopped warming in 1998 and has been getting cooler ever since. Another little tidbit your econazi zealots won't tell you.

1998 was so warm because of a strong el nino. Recent years without strong el ninos are getting closer to that mark which indicates there has been warming since 1998. Something those contrarian op-ed authors won't tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1998 was so warm because of a strong el nino. Recent years without strong el ninos are getting closer to that mark which indicates there has been warming since 1998. Something those contrarian op-ed authors won't tell you.

That does not indicate warming. It doesn't even make any sense. Even if it did, it still has nothing to do with CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer that is based on a PUBLISHED paper:

180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods

Ernst-Georg Beck

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

The paper is incorrect and doesn't form the current view on the subject. Chemical methods might be accurate to 3%, but you won't get correct measurements if you are measuring in an area not representative of atmospheric co2 levels. Measuring in cities or downwind from cities can contain air more than 100ppm higher in co2, and it's very difficult to find areas that are not contaminated in such a way to perform measurements from. That's why pre-mauna loa co2 measurements suffered from such wild swings.

Just look at Beck's graph and ask yourself if it makes sense that co2 wildly fluctuated from year to year until right at the moment mauna loa measurements came online and since then it's been a perfect smooth upwards curve. Did co2 somehow change behavior when new measurement methods started being used in the 1950s, as if co2 somehow knew it was being looked at? Or is it more likely that prior measurements using unreliable methodology and certainly weren't within 3% of actual atmospheric content?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Speaking of Live Earth....

PETA lambasted Gore as a hypocrite!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love "climate change deniers!" It just makes me shake my head that the inquisitorial faith in "manmade climate change" that you folks have is so strong that you have to try to link it to some mass crime against humanity. It's like the Malthusian "population bomb" that everyuone was in such a tizzy over a few decades ago, or the Y2K scare, or any number of wooooscary things that were "inevitable" and had scientific "consensus."

10 years down the road anyone who says those kinds of things will be a laughing stock. I'd drop the usage soon if I were you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give PETA as much credence as I give NAMBLA. They're really very similar organizations.
I don't like either organization but that's going a bit far. I'd probably take matters into my own hands if a NAMBLA member approached one of my sons. I doubt I would get so violent with a PETA member.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,751
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • User went up a rank
      Mentor
    • NakedHunterBiden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...