Quiz of the day.
Global warming is:
a) the most serious issue of our times, dooming us to certain death any time now, so use paper bags and crappy lightbulbs, you peons!
b) a great excuse for rich people to fly over to Spain for the Climate Change & Wine Conference, to listen to Al Gore speak while enjoying a fine, robust red.
c) obviously a complete load of crap and a total hoax and scam, based on the discordance between a) and b), a disconnect obvious to you and me, but not to our moral and intellectual superiors on the elite Left.
All those posts seem like a funny way to “ignore” Al Gore. He really winds you guys up eh ?
No one’s complaining that Gore’s “making money.” No on complains that the guy who swindles the poor and the elderly out of their life’s savings by selling them butterfly insurance is “making money.” We point out that he’s a con man, a swindler, a liar, and an asshole for taking advantage of people who don’t know any better. Likewise, Al Gore, currently getting away with the fraud of the century.
Meanwhile, it’s about twenty degrees colder than usual in Siberia. I think they’d welcome a little global warming–won’t someone think of the CHILDREN!?!?
Gray, yah Big Al (aka The big lie) does wind me up. I really do wish I had thought of a way of bilking millions of people out of money through a crisis that has been perpetrated through the media without any scientific discussion.
But so do trolls like you who think that rational discourse is a one way street.
“Beware of those who claim to be more liberal than you. They have no tolerance for views not agreeing with their own.”
redneck
I’m not objecting to rational discourse but rather waiting for it to happen. If you have arguments aside from ad hominens and simple insults present them. We know you are antipathetic to Al Gore, ok now what ?
As for the bigger debate about GW, I’m not going to comment other than to say I saw AIT last week and I’m looking to see TGS next week. Too many intelligent & capable people on either side to dismiss them out of hand.
gray – when you demonstrate that you are able to distinguish between an ad hominem attack and pointing out blatant hypocrisy, MAYBE you will be able to engage in rational discourse. Until you grow up and accomplish that, please waste pixels somewhere else.
AIT = Al in Tuxedo??
or
AIT = Anthropomorphic Industry Toads??
Gray:
I have stated my position, and I have stated how Al Gore could rectify the situation (teleconferencing). I have also stated that his Oscar winning movie is rife with errors.
So, in short, I am unsure what else you want. You keep telling me that there is no rational discourse only ad hominem attacks. I just don’t see that.
Sorry. I would say that you need to support WHY Big Al has to go to this conference, rather than troll for responses.
Rabble.ca has a good forum for open and honest discussion. You might find that type of rational debate more to your liking.
STOP HOT AIR DUCT TAPE AL GORES MOUTH SHUT
I’ll try to see the Great Swindle this week and see what it says about the science in AIT.
All the requests to leave . . . . you really don’t like anyone upsetting this echo chamber do you? As it is I don’t care much for rabble but it seems you have clearly ID’ed your left wing mirror. Pointing out ironies here is more fun.
Anyway we’ve pretty much beaten this one to death so I’ll leave this thread to you. I’m sure we’ll be able to pick up the topic later.
I would like to get that THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE it should be more on facts and less on mindless blabber like gore dose
Seriously though, the stuff I read says that back in the early dinosaur days, there was so much oxygen in the air that wet logs could burn, and they know this because insects were huge, and to be that huge they needed lots of oxygen. If there was so much oxygen (or phlogisten, to be more precise), less of it (presumably) was tied upon in CO2. So there was less CO2, but it was warm and cozy for the dinosaurs.
At least, I think it refutes any claim of a one-to-one relation of CO2 and Global temperature.
I don’t suppose you could add one…
D: Sadly, a true and scientifically proven situation, though not as horrible as the doomsayers make it out to be… and often misunderstood because a “D” class politician made it a cause and has buried the facts about it in a puff of political smoke and mirrors. It is something we should try to help with, but we don’t need any drastic measures… and there are areas we can work on that won’t affect our general way of life.
It still reminds me when Democrats used to flip-out over Nixon’s and Reagan’s work against smoking (especially C. Everett Koop’s efforts,) when they trotted out doctor after doctor after medical paper claiming smoking wasn’t all that bad for you… in fact, it had benefits… and that the “Republican Conspiracy” to end tobacco smoke was a shot at (at the time,) Democratic controlled tobacco growing states.
The other hoopla reminds me of the ongoing battles against cleaning up acid rain… According to “Scientists” in Pennsylvania and Washington, that was an overblown issue too… except to those of us in the dreaded province of Ontario, bits of Quebec, and upstate New York. They screamed that doing stuff about that problem would kill the economy, ruin job creation, and overall destroy the way of life on the Eastern sea-board. To date, it hasn’t… and as a “cottager”, I’ve seen lakes that died come back to some life up in the central parts of Ontario because of the efforts made.
I could also add removing CFCs as a horrible idea and issue… and lead paints and lead in gasoline… all of which were fought by politicians and industry…
Perhaps I’m naive… but I avoid skewed sources on either side and stick with actual peer reviewed information and journals…
There IS something to this… it’s not as “cyclical” as people assume (the “Hockey-Stick” graph has been completely discredited,) and yet, the message from some is “doing nothing is the way to go.” …or at least, that’s how it reads.
The most conservative estimates of “how much” CO2 is “man-made” in the atmosphere is a touch less than 4%… and despite that figure coming from the NRSP (which is also widely discredited,) I think to myself if I could help the amount of pollution by 4 parts per hundred, shouldn’t I try?
…or is trying a bad thing which is how everything comes across on these blogs?
I get very confused… and to be honest, peer-reviewed science seems to support that something is going on faster than before… and discussion about greenhouse gasses predates idiot-boy Al Gore by a long shot…
I gotta say it… thanks to idiot-boy, I honestly believe in my heart-of-hearts that political philosophies are overriding science… and that hearkens back to the trials of Galileo.
I’m sure I’m wrong… and that my sources, (things like New Scientist and Popular Science as mainstream references,) despite normally being accepted as legitimate and non-biased are now biased and illegitimate… but one question to the masses…
Do you believe we SHOULD try to cut carbon emissions… or not?