French scientist calls Gore a 'crook' and...

[the iron horse]

Why won't Al Gore Debate?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59470

 

[Vincent Vega]

Why don't you debate the points DrTeeth brought up after you said earlier that you are waiting for such rebuttals?

Is waiting cheaper? http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/FloridaClimate.html

Can we risk it, or afford it, to play this lame "Let's look who is right!" game?

 

[martha]

Can I ask my question again, the one that no one here will answer?

Question: If the global warming people are wrong, what has been lost in getting people to conserve and be more mindful of their impact on the environment? If the global warming people are right, what has been lost ignoring their warnings?

Maybe this is the thread where I get an answer!

 

[BVS]

Here's one: Remember the depiction of Florida drowning, beginning to be covered by the ocean? Well apparently, that picture was- get this- "based on a water level rise that is 5 times higher than the high end of the worst-case scenario given by scientists who thought the UN report was too conservative."

An exageration...

One more interesting thing, taken directly from Beck's book that I found funny: "You seem to be criticized only if you say there will be less devastation. When Gore says there will be more, he's not only embraced, he wins Oscars."


But, if it doesn't bother you guys....

This doesn't contradict anything, it just says it won't be as severe and quick...

Hey, but keep pretending we can ignore the issue.

 

[phillyfan26]

OK. So, let me get this straight. Because Al Gore has made incorrect statements, global warming must be made up?

Bullshit logic.

 

[BVS]

Why won't Al Gore Debate?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59470

Why would Gore debate scientists? Let scientists debate scientists.

Why don't you debate?

 

[phillyfan26]

Why don't you debate?

 

[anitram]

Can I ask my question again, the one that no one here will answer?

Question: If the global warming people are wrong, what has been lost in getting people to conserve and be more mindful of their impact on the environment? If the global warming people are right, what has been lost ignoring their warnings?

Maybe this is the thread where I get an answer!

My guess is that you'll get something that goes like this: it is negatively impacting the economy to have to bring the industrial sector up to standards that may be unnecessary. And it's also bad for the government to intrude into the business of private corporations (individual people's bedrooms and vaginas are totally different).

But I'd love a less predictable, more out-there answer.

 

[martha]

But I'd love a less predictable, more out-there answer.

Hell, I'd love an answer.

 

[2861U2]

OK. So, let me get this straight. Because Al Gore has made incorrect statements, global warming must be made up?

Bullshit logic.

Huh? When did I ever say it was made up? And when did I ever say we should ignore the issue, BVS? Sheesh, talk about exaggerations...

The condition that we leave this planet in is important, sure. I'm all for not polluting or littering and all that good stuff. But the alarmism out there, mixed with the lies and exaggerations of AlGore's followers really make it hard for me to put global warming high on my list of important issues. What, all of a sudden, is so bad about there being skeptics who have facts to back them up and happen to point out some lies that everyone seems to not care about? Considering we've gone from worrying about global cooling to global warming back to cooling and now back to warming again, it's hard to take seriously and believe what is out there and presented to us. Is this not the same group of people in this forum who once told me to "challenge and question everything?"

And if you want to talk about bullshit logic, philly, how about martha's statement: If the global warming people are wrong, what has been lost in getting people to conserve and be more mindful of their impact on the environment? If the global warming people are right, what has been lost ignoring their warnings?"

Fair question, but that's like me saying, "Alright, I want all of you here to give me $1000. Now, I want you to pick a number 1-10. If you happen to pick the same number I was thinking of, I'll give you your money back. Assuming you don't pick the right number, I'll donate it all to charity."

Would you give me $1000? I don't think you would. And it's not because you don't like charity (just like how I'm not against helping the planet). What if the amount changed to $1 instead of $1000? I'd probably get a few more people willing to play along. The problem is the extremity of it, you see. I'm happy to not litter and to turn off lights when I leave a room. But telling me what cars to buy? Telling my what light bulbs I can and can't have? Telling me that global warming is as great a threat to me as radical Islamists? Telling me that Florida is going to be underwater WAY, WAY sooner than it actually ever would be? Sorry, those lies and irresponsible presentations just turns me off entirely.

 

[Infinity]

Anyone who makes a comparison between those concerned about humans' effect on global warming and Hitler is an idiot.

Yup. And if that is not enough, Beck also compared terrorists to child rapists.

Basically he was arguing against the fact that U.S. foreign policy towards Muslim countries combined with rising racism against Muslims is causing more Muslims to radicalize and become terrorists. It makes sense to me, not that terrorism is justified.

Glenn Beck said that terrorists are terrorists definitely not for this reason but just because they are crazy people and they want to kill us for no reason at all. This is one of many things that I hate so much about neo-conservatives. All they say is that terrorists attack us because they are crazy or they hate that we are free or rich. Which of course is not the real reason.

Anyway, Beck was saying that if someone becomes prejudice against child rapists, that is not going to compell them to go out and rape more children and will not compell more adults to be rapists. So if people are prejudice against Muslims, why would that want to make them terrorize more? This argument made me want to break a hole in my T.V., seriously. Child rapists are not a group of people. They are not a team. So if i'm prejudice against a child rapist, why would that want to make another adult a child rapist. Whereas if I were prejudice against Muslims, that would want to make other Muslims get angry at me, or hurt me, or kill me.

I agree, he is a bit of an idiot.

 

[BVS]

Huh? When did I ever say it was made up? And when did I ever say we should ignore the issue, BVS? Sheesh, talk about exaggerations...

Well Beck is your hero and he's a denier, I figured you'd follow suit.

The condition that we leave this planet in is important, sure. I'm all for not polluting or littering and all that good stuff. But the alarmism out there, mixed with the lies and exaggerations of AlGore's followers really make it hard for me to put global warming high on my list of important issues. What, all of a sudden, is so bad about there being skeptics who have facts to back them up and happen to point out some lies that everyone seems to not care about? Considering we've gone from worrying about global cooling to global warming back to cooling and now back to warming again, it's hard to take seriously and believe what is out there and presented to us. Is this not the same group of people in this forum who once told me to "challenge and question everything?"

Yeah, I must have slept through the whole global cooling scare.

And if you want to talk about bullshit logic, philly, how about martha's statement: If the global warming people are wrong, what has been lost in getting people to conserve and be more mindful of their impact on the environment? If the global warming people are right, what has been lost ignoring their warnings?"

Fair question, but that's like me saying, "Alright, I want all of you here to give me $1000. Now, I want you to pick a number 1-10. If you happen to pick the same number I was thinking of, I'll give you your money back. Assuming you don't pick the right number, I'll donate it all to charity."

How is this a comparible analogy in anyone's land of logic?

The problem is the extremity of it, you see. I'm happy to not litter and to turn off lights when I leave a room. But telling me what cars to buy? Telling my what light bulbs I can and can't have? Telling me that global warming is as great a threat to me as radical Islamists? Telling me that Florida is going to be underwater WAY, WAY sooner than it actually ever would be? Sorry, those lies and irresponsible presentations just turns me off entirely.

See, your thinking is far too narrow right here. Not littering and turning off lights is nice, but it won't change shit.

People see someone say it's as great a threat to me as radical Islam, and they get so up in arms, because right now you have been given an enemy to rally under. But if someone told you it would have been a great threat 2 decades ago, you would have laughed because you'd still be worried about the communists, so you wouldn't have done anything about terrorism. The right often lacks the ability to look forward. I find it funny that you get up in arms about this comparison, but are fine with comparing Gore to Hitler, very telling.

 

[Vincent Vega]

He probably confused the Gulf Stream theory with global cooling, which is that global warming causes the north American ice to melt and streaming through the Saint Lawrence stream into the Atlantic, where the masses of sweat water would stop the Gulf stream from carrying warm water to the north which then would cause the temperatures to go down again in the north, causing a cooling in the northern hemisphere.
But more recent findings have concluded that this might well remain just theory and the Gulf stream wouldn't break down due to the meltdown.

It's interesting that everything that requires more action than reducing littering and turing off lights is just exaggeration and lies.

 

[martha]

My question was quoted, but not answered.

 

[Vincent Vega]

What has been lost then you could read in the IPCC report, or in the paper I linked to about the costs Florida might be facing if it ignores the threats of climate change.

Since scientists are no fortunetellers and no one has yet developed a time machine, of course all this is based on models and theories and not bulletproof fact, but nevertheless, if dozens of models are predicting almost the same and most of what the theories predict can already be seen in may parts of the world is it really reasonable to say that this is all crap and never going to happen?

 

[2861U2]

Yeah, I must have slept through the whole global cooling scare.

No kidding.

funny that you get up in arms about this comparison, but are fine with comparing Gore to Hitler, very telling.

And you must have missed the multiple times when I stated that Beck said a stupid thing and shouldn't have said it. Do you only read every other word I post, or something? I don't get how you are missing all this stuff.

Look, I'm glad Al Gore is making the earth an issue again. I really am. I'm still wondering how a movie so full of alarmism, exaggerations and lies creating some skeptics is a suddenly viewed as such a terrible and unfathomable thing. Again, his message of helping the earth is fine, but the means of doing it are dishonest, which lead me to question the whole global warming movement, and no one here seems to care.

 

[BVS]

No kidding.

Do a little research, global cooling never had significant scientific support, that's why I said I must have slept through the "scare". So your bringing it up is absurd.

And you must have missed the multiple times when I stated that Beck said a stupid thing and shouldn't have said it. Do you only read every other word I post, or something? I don't get how you are missing all this stuff.

No you wrote it off as a dumb thing he said, but continued to make the comparison yourself. Reread your own post.

Look, I'm glad Al Gore is making the earth an issue again. I really am. I'm still wondering how a movie so full of alarmism, exaggerations and lies creating some skeptics is a suddenly viewed as such a terrible and unfathomable thing. Again, his message of helping the earth is fine, but the means of doing it are dishonest, which lead me to question the whole global warming movement, and no one here seems to care.

Your logic is astounding. So because someone pointed out some exagerations to you, you question the whole thing?

I haven't seen the movie. I knew about global warming before Gore came along. I think it's funny that the right think Gore invented global warming. He's just been the most outspoken person with a voice to talk about it.

So just forget about the movie and research it youself without any political talking heads telling you how to think.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Again, his message of helping the earth is fine, but the means of doing it are dishonest, which lead me to question the whole global warming movement, and no one here seems to care.

It's like questioning the whole animal rights movement only because one organisation, PETA, is screwing up.

It's not rational.

 

[martha]

but the means of doing it are dishonest, which lead me to question the whole global warming movement,

How convenient for you. You get to dismiss an entire scientific theory because you don't like one of the messengers. Do you do that in your college papers too? Dismiss an entire school of thought because one of the adherents does something you think may be dishonest?

 

[2861U2]

Do a little research, global cooling never had significant scientific support, that's why I said I must have slept through the "scare". So your bringing it up is absurd.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if in 20 years, everyone is talking about global cooling. From Newsweek, 1975: "The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Dismiss an entire school of thought because one of the adherents does something you think may be dishonest?

It's not just Gore. Scientists have said things that I've seen challenged and/or proven false entirely. Unlike most issues though, when it comes to global warming, I rarely hear honest questioning, which is never good.

The idea of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and ideas like them are completely laughable and pointless. The hypocrisy among the global warming crowd is also laughable. Not only does Gore and his friends fly in jets, I bet they eat meat, too. And we all know how much worse methane is than CO2, right?

 

[anitram]

The idea of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and ideas like them are completely laughable and pointless.

Why?

 

[2861U2]

Why?

"Australia has implemented one of the most aggressive campaigns in the world, and they expect old-style incandescent lightbulbs to be completely phased out by 2010. The Australian government bragged that the program will save an average of 800,000 metric tons of CO2 per year for the next four years. Wow! That must make a huge difference, right? Wrong. What they left out is that the savings equate to a paltry 0.21 percent of Australian emissions. To put it another way, an entire continent being forced to use fluorescent lightbulbs will reduce world emissions by 0.003 percent. Of course, increases in other sectors would nullify the entire cut in approximately five hours."


Is that even worth it? 0.003 percent? Talk about baby steps, that's quite the baby step.

 

[ntalwar]

The idea of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and ideas like them are completely laughable and pointless.

In 2002, crude oil was $20 a barrel and today it hit $100 for the first time and it's forecast to go higher. Ask yourself - is a lifestyle based heavily on nonrenewable sources of energy (fossil fuels) sustainable over the long term (or even medium term)?

 

[anitram]

Why are you looking at 0.003? Should we criticize Australia because the other countries are doing nothing? That's the essence of your argument.

0.21% is a better number to consider. Is it huge? No. But it's a bloody start. Considering how much people love the status quo and how much energy people like you will devote to adamantly fighting every progressive idea when it comes to energy savings, you have to start with baby steps.

I am going on 2 years without a car because I felt I could make the sacrifice and walk and take the bus and the train. I also pay more per month to live in a perfectly energy efficient building (doesn't hurt that it was built in 2006). I use reusable bags at the grocery store. My efforts reduce world emissions by something like 0.000000000000000000000000001 of a 0.000001 percent. Does that mean it's better for me to do absolutely nothing? Well I guess if I were you, it would be.

If we all had your attitude, there would never be any progress. After all, the first vaccines were largely ineffective, so why bother.

 

[BVS]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if in 20 years, everyone is talking about global cooling. From Newsweek, 1975: "The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Seriously, do some research!!!
It NEVER had a significant backing!

It's not just Gore. Scientists have said things that I've seen challenged and/or proven false entirely. Unlike most issues though, when it comes to global warming, I rarely hear honest questioning, which is never good.

Really, what have scientists said that you've seen "proven false entirely"? Just show me one.

The idea of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and ideas like them are completely laughable and pointless. The hypocrisy among the global warming crowd is also laughable. Not only does Gore and his friends fly in jets, I bet they eat meat, too. And we all know how much worse methane is than CO2, right?

This is laughable.


You can't even debate the real science. You just attack Gore and talk about obsolete theories.

 

[2861U2]

Seriously, do some research!!!
It NEVER had a significant backing!

Then explain why it was such a scare in the 1930s and 70s? First off, we didn't know hardly anything about greenhouse gases back in the 70s, but it's not just that. It's not simply that science has gotten better or that we may have more evidence. What is also happening is that scientists say they are more certain than before, they use more colorful language to scare people, and they get more hostile towards dissenting voices.

Really, what have scientists said that you've seen "proven false entirely"? Just show me one.

Well, how about the statement I brought up earlier. Helen Caldicott of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Everytime you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." I don't think I have to do much research to determine that that's a boneheaded statement. I could give you others, though. Here's a good start- http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm

You just attack Gore and talk about obsolete theories.

Right. Obsolete theories, like the fact that an entire continent switching lightbulbs results in a microscopic difference in emission. How about the fact that nitrous oxide warms the planet much, much more than does CO2, and the fact that methane cycles out of the atmosphere much quicker than does CO2. Therefore, not eating meat is a much more effective way to create change. Based on that, I could argue that any global warming activist who isn't a vegan is a hypocrite. Or how about your beloved Kyoto? Yeah, that's such a good idea. Even if everything the global warming people say is true (which it isnt) and Kyoto is totally successful (which is a long, long way off), the effect would still be unbelievably small. You really think Kyoto will work? Right. The same country that provided an incompetent response to a hurricane surely will be able to competently manage a nationwide system of caps of an invisible gas.

 

[anitram]

Well, how about the statement I brought up earlier. Helen Caldicott of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Everytime you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." I don't think I have to do much research to determine that that's a boneheaded statement.

How is this a disproven scientific theory or data?

 

[martha]

Then explain why it was such a scare in the 1930s and 70s?

You know, it really wasn't a "scare" in the 70s. It was a theory. I remember it. It wasn't a huge deal.

 

[BVS]

Then explain why it was such a scare in the 1930s and 70s? First off, we didn't know hardly anything about greenhouse gases back in the 70s, but it's not just that. It's not simply that science has gotten better or that we may have more evidence. What is also happening is that scientists say they are more certain than before, they use more colorful language to scare people, and they get more hostile towards dissenting voices.

It was definately not a scare in the 70's. And from what I've seen the 30's weren't too worried about it either.

Well, how about the statement I brought up earlier. Helen Caldicott of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Everytime you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." I don't think I have to do much research to determine that that's a boneheaded statement.

That statement isn't scientific data. Come on man, you do know the difference, right?

Right. Obsolete theories, like the fact that an entire continent switching lightbulbs results in a microscopic difference in emission. How about the fact that nitrous oxide warms the planet much, much more than does CO2, and the fact that methane cycles out of the atmosphere much quicker than does CO2. Therefore, not eating meat is a much more effective way to create change. Based on that, I could argue that any global warming activist who isn't a vegan is a hypocrite. Or how about your beloved Kyoto? Yeah, that's such a good idea. Even if everything the global warming people say is true (which it isnt) and Kyoto is totally successful (which is a long, long way off), the effect would still be unbelievably small. You really think Kyoto will work? Right. The same country that provided an incompetent response to a hurricane surely will be able to competently manage a nationwide system of caps of an invisible gas.

I was talking about global cooling being an obsolete theory. What you are talking about isn't obsolete...

See once again you start attacking people as hypocrites and you never get to the point of debating the data. You just make comments like whatever we do won't be enough. Until you start actually debating the data, I give up, it's useless.

 

[phillyfan26]

Huh? When did I ever say it was made up? And when did I ever say we should ignore the issue, BVS? Sheesh, talk about exaggerations...

Well, what are you saying? All I've seen is you defend the people who attack global warming and attack every effort made to work on global warming.

The condition that we leave this planet in is important, sure. I'm all for not polluting or littering and all that good stuff. But the alarmism out there, mixed with the lies and exaggerations of Al Gore's followers really make it hard for me to put global warming high on my list of important issues. What, all of a sudden, is so bad about there being skeptics who have facts to back them up and happen to point out some lies that everyone seems to not care about? Considering we've gone from worrying about global cooling to global warming back to cooling and now back to warming again, it's hard to take seriously and believe what is out there and presented to us. Is this not the same group of people in this forum who once told me to "challenge and question everything?"

Well, I'll ignore the global cooling thing for now.

Al Gore is not the end all, be all of this issue. The facts that I have seen, that have been verified many times over, are the ones that are important. I absolutely disagree with the exxagerations out there. But that shouldn't mean dismissal of the issue as a whole, which is all I've seen.

And your "challenge and question everything" comment is funny to me. You're more of a lover of the status quo than anything.

And if you want to talk about bullshit logic, philly, how about martha's statement: If the global warming people are wrong, what has been lost in getting people to conserve and be more mindful of their impact on the environment? If the global warming people are right, what has been lost ignoring their warnings?"

Fair question, but that's like me saying, "Alright, I want all of you here to give me $1000. Now, I want you to pick a number 1-10. If you happen to pick the same number I was thinking of, I'll give you your money back. Assuming you don't pick the right number, I'll donate it all to charity."

Would you give me $1000? I don't think you would. And it's not because you don't like charity (just like how I'm not against helping the planet). What if the amount changed to $1 instead of $1000? I'd probably get a few more people willing to play along. The problem is the extremity of it, you see. I'm happy to not litter and to turn off lights when I leave a room. But telling me what cars to buy? Telling my what light bulbs I can and can't have? Telling me that global warming is as great a threat to me as radical Islamists? Telling me that Florida is going to be underwater WAY, WAY sooner than it actually ever would be? Sorry, those lies and irresponsible presentations just turns me off entirely.

So, you're combatting what you call "bullshit logic" and "exxagerations" with ... bullshit logic and exxagerations.

To compare global warming to picking a number between 1 and 10 makes your entire line of thinking not worth responding to.