|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
NYT To Al Gore: Cool It On Global Warming Hype
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| NYT To Al Gore: Cool It On Global Warming Hype
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Psychomike |
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.
Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/s...agewanted=print |
|
|
| as512 |
| Rebel against science! Its what made our country a great power! <burns some evolution books> |
|
|
| Psychomike |
A funny thing is happening to the Democratic Party. Here in Chicago aldermen who fought to prohibit smoking, fats used by fast food chains, chopped liver and the like suddenly found most of them tossed out or facing runoffs. In a city where people think Republicans have tails and spend all day beating up minorities and hoarding gold, people who had been raised to be the children of government finally said enough. They had long ago given up the right to protest (unless its against Republicans), the second amendment and turned their communities over to street gangs- but the flurry of bills from Comrade Joe Moore and Chairman Natarus was too much to go with.
The unions jumped in and claimed credit for the losses, but Moore was a proponent of the big box tax, a plot to drive business out of the city and wreck the economy before the next election ( "It's the economy stupid" they use to say. After 6 years of tax cuts, they don't bring up the economy at all!)
People raised to believe the government was their parents, simply couldn't stomach the direction.
In Las Vegas, the long awaited housing "crisis" hit home. Finally. Roughly 60% of the brand new buildings that have not sold their condos- are now RENTALS! Yep, brand new buildings and appliances- rented out until they can be sold. There are more rentals available now in Vegas than ever before! So much for fighting developement.
They can't run on Iraq because they haven't done anything but retreat on the issue. ( Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312...o_pr_wh/us_iraq )
That leaves the environment. UH OH! |
|
|
| 43 Cent |
| the point is that we should start taking care of our home otherwise we'll eventually suffer... not how long it will take to happen |
|
|
| Psychomike |
No the point is there are issues in this world that we could actually make an impact on and save lives- but you clowns are running around trying to save the world.
There is still slavery in the world.
All this energy could be used to save those people. But instead, you waste time trying to be Superman.
Absurd. |
|
|
| as512 |
| Yeah, there are plenty of oil rich countries that need saving... Darfur who? |
|
|
| 43 Cent |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
No the point is there are issues in this world that we could actually make an impact on and save lives- but you clowns are running around trying to save the world.
There is still slavery in the world.
All this energy could be used to save those people. But instead, you waste time trying to be Superman.
Absurd. |
empty words from someone who i'm sure isn't doing shit. |
|
|
| bababooey2uall |
| Yeah, it's more important that Exxon Mobil make record profits than we save our planet...fuck you Al Gore..shut up. |
|
|
| otherone4life |
| take it to (1) wgas or (2) politics |
|
|
| bababooey2uall |
| It is a matter of Nobel prize winning scientists unanimously having one opinion and Republican special interest fed assholes having the opposing opinion. Which one is more credible? |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Psychomike regularly gets his ass handed to him in the Politics section, for some reason he thinks he can get away with posting his bullshit in the Chatter section.
Back to the Politics section Mikey, Assboil has a beating for you. |
|
|
| Captainqueeg |
| I think the answer is that scientists are stoopid, but let me check www.rushisapillhead.com to be sure. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
"Psychomike regularly gets his ass handed to him in the Politics section, for some reason he thinks he can get away with posting his bullshit in the Chatter section."
Are you past 7th grade?
First off this is posted here because Howard has argued global warming on air.
So I post that scientists who refused to sign the UN report had their names added anyway, that many names weren't scientists. The responses are " You Republicunt! Bush is to blame for everything!" And ihatebeto thinks that's handing me my ass?
Is there a punchline here I'm missing?
When you get old enough to leave home and get a job, you'll discover that way of talking to people isn't allowed in the adult world and is best ignored and chalked up to brainwashed youth.
Because calling names doesn't answer the question. Why are scientists who refused to go along with the UN report faced with their names on the report?
You can make Rush jokes, name call, scream in rage.
Answer the fucking question. |
|
|
| Cro Cop |
Global warming is a scam, just as global cooling was in the 70's. GW is all about politics and money. Scientists who trumpet it want huge grants from the government to "study" the phenomenon. Gore is using it as a political stage, although he's stupid enough to believe it.
If these CO2 laws pass, it will create a huge economy in green vouchers: buy $10,000 green vouchers and enjoy your Hummer! Rich celebs will have all the luxuries of life. You and I get screwed.
As Daniel Carver said: Wake up white people! |
|
|
| FUNT |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
A funny thing is happening to the Democratic Party. Here in Chicago aldermen who fought to prohibit smoking, fats used by fast food chains, chopped liver and the like suddenly found most of them tossed out or facing runoffs. |
This is encouraging -- as is what you post about a rebellion against Gore's ridiculous alarmist posturing.
The Left's disgraceful manipulation of peoples' innate desire for safety has rendered them untenable as a political option. Which is too bad, really, because some of what they stand for truley is progressive. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
They can't use the economy to run. Or even Iraq since they have done nothing but complain while giving Bush what he wants, the environment is all they have left.
The scientific method will destroy them. |
|
|
| tommyp |
Quote: Originally posted by otherone4life
take it to (1) wgas or (2) politics |
Psychomike already started the same thread in the Politics section yesterday. Because it's starting to die out there, he's trying to keep it going here. |
|
|
| AcquiringSignal |
Quote: Originally posted by tommyp
Psychomike already started the same thread in the Politics section yesterday. Because it's starting to die out there, he's trying to keep it going here. |
He is trying to run from Assboil :D |
|
|
| bob_goulet |
Quote: Originally posted by tommyp
Psychomike already started the same thread in the Politics section yesterday. Because it's starting to die out there, he's trying to keep it going here. |
Oh if it AGREED with your opinion, it would be perfectly fine to be here, wouldn't it?? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| lilbuddy67 |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.
Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/s...agewanted=print |
|
|
|
| W00dYi |
| Dude, Gore's movie and position isn't based on science. It's their desire to control your life and influence what you do. No different than the Christian Right using morality to try to control you. Step back and take a look. |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
SO WHAT!!
 |
|
|
| Psychomike |
Since I answered a post at the political thread, bob goulet, just minutes ago I have no idea where you got the idea that thread is dead.
It also isn't the same topic. |
|
|
| Superman64 |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
No the point is there are issues in this world that we could actually make an impact on and save lives- but you clowns are running around trying to save the world.
There is still slavery in the world.
All this energy could be used to save those people. But instead, you waste time trying to be Superman.
Absurd. |
Who dis? |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Quote: Originally posted by W00dYi
Dude, Gore's movie and position isn't based on science. It's their desire to control your life and influence what you do. No different than the Christian Right using morality to try to control you. Step back and take a look. |
Amen. I've always seen similarities between self righteous christians and environmental extremists. They both have an ethos based on an impending apocalypse, and we all have to do what they say to save ourselves.
Science aside, the type of person can be more similiar than either would like to admit. |
|
|
| lovenrockets |
Quote: Originally posted by bababooey2uall
It is a matter of Nobel prize winning scientists unanimously having one opinion and Republican special interest fed assholes having the opposing opinion. Which one is more credible? |
Bababooey2uall, my hero! :clap: |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
| Global warming should be taken seriuously. If it takes a little beefing up to scare dumb ass, lazy Americans to wake up and join the battle, all the more power. Shit couldnt hurt to change... |
|
|
| lovenrockets |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Old Job
Global warming should be taken seriuously. If it takes a little beefing up to scare dumb ass, lazy Americans to wake up and join the battle, all the more power. Shit couldnt hurt to change... |
:) |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Old Job
Global warming should be taken seriuously. If it takes a little beefing up to scare dumb ass, lazy Americans to wake up and join the battle, all the more power. Shit couldnt hurt to change... |
Yeah but this "beefing up" is considered by many to just be lying. What good does this do for the global warming cause when the apocalyse doesn't come by 2023 or whenever? |
|
|
| bob_goulet |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Since I answered a post at the political thread, bob goulet, just minutes ago I have no idea where you got the idea that thread is dead.
It also isn't the same topic. |
Wasn't me saying the thread was dead, dude. |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
| Yeah, didnt he say that there are natural fluxuations but this has been unpresidented. AND he addresses that the entire scientfic community backs this up, or the presence of global warming, and all of the articles that have come out questioning or refuting it have NOT been scientific publications. Americans need to know the sense of urgency or we will naturally procrastinate. you can say that the Earth goes thru its natural hi's and lows, but there is NO DOUBT that we are speeding this process up in an unpresidented way. Our population is growing exponentially without being checked (so far). We need to take this seriously and change quickly, its all for the better. God I feel like Gay Tony... |
|
|
| Psychomike |
So forget starvation.
Forget slavery.
Forget sexual slavery.
Save the planet!
Now, why should we trust the UN with trillions of dollars to deal with the problem? |
|
|
| sternaholics |
| Dry Oatmeal! |
|
|
| Psychomike |
For those who haven't given in to the propaganda yet- this is why when the liberals say do not dare question us, do as you're told I have problems:
When it began in 1996, the Oil-for-Food Program gave hope to millions of Iraqi people who had become the unintended victims of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. It allowed Iraq to sell its oil to finance purchases of humanitarian goods supervised by the United Nations.
But the Iraq war brought the Oil-for-Food Program to a sudden end, and subsequent investigations show the program was poorly managed and riddled with fraud. At a Senate hearing two weeks ago, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, who has been leading a seven-month investigation, laid out charges that Saddam Hussein himself pocketed billions of dollars manipulating the oil- for-food program.
SEN. NORM COLEMAN: The failure of the program wasn't just in providing food, medicine and comfort to the Iraqi people; the failure of the program was also not having strong oversight and checks and balances that would have prevented a small group of people and nations from raping billions -- billions -- of dollars from the people of Iraq.
And without the UN changing a thing, we are about to give them trillions to "educate people".
Have you all lost your minds? |
|
|
| BaBaBoston |
| did u hear howard got his tapes back? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| nemo |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
For those who haven't given in to the propaganda yet- this is why when the liberals say do not dare question us, do as you're told I have problems:
When it began in 1996, the Oil-for-Food Program gave hope to millions of Iraqi people who had become the unintended victims of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. It allowed Iraq to sell its oil to finance purchases of humanitarian goods supervised by the United Nations.
But the Iraq war brought the Oil-for-Food Program to a sudden end, and subsequent investigations show the program was poorly managed and riddled with fraud. At a Senate hearing two weeks ago, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, who has been leading a seven-month investigation, laid out charges that Saddam Hussein himself pocketed billions of dollars manipulating the oil- for-food program.
SEN. NORM COLEMAN: The failure of the program wasn't just in providing food, medicine and comfort to the Iraqi people; the failure of the program was also not having strong oversight and checks and balances that would have prevented a small group of people and nations from raping billions -- billions -- of dollars from the people of Iraq.
And without the UN changing a thing, we are about to give them trillions to "educate people".
Have you all lost your minds? |
So what you are saying is that without a doubt the UN is a crooked cesspool of lying thieves. Saddam never believed the US would go to war without the UN votes. And since he had bought off the Russia Germany and France votes in the oil for food scam he never thought the USA would invade. Who is Marc Rich? "Pardon" me for asking.
Global warming is junk science? But so many scientists say it is real and would be left without a job if the funding dried up. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
For those who haven't given in to the propaganda yet- this is why when the liberals say do not dare question us, do as you're told I have problems:
When it began in 1996, the Oil-for-Food Program gave hope to millions of Iraqi people who had become the unintended victims of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. It allowed Iraq to sell its oil to finance purchases of humanitarian goods supervised by the United Nations.
But the Iraq war brought the Oil-for-Food Program to a sudden end, and subsequent investigations show the program was poorly managed and riddled with fraud. At a Senate hearing two weeks ago, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, who has been leading a seven-month investigation, laid out charges that Saddam Hussein himself pocketed billions of dollars manipulating the oil- for-food program.
SEN. NORM COLEMAN: The failure of the program wasn't just in providing food, medicine and comfort to the Iraqi people; the failure of the program was also not having strong oversight and checks and balances that would have prevented a small group of people and nations from raping billions -- billions -- of dollars from the people of Iraq.
And without the UN changing a thing, we are about to give them trillions to "educate people".
Have you all lost your minds? |
Are you telling me that the UN misappropriated billions of dollars in Iraq?
Oh, no.
They really should be held accountable.
Of course, we should probably clean our own house first, seeing as how we have also misappropriated billions of dollars in Iraq and continue to do so to this very day.
Of course, we are all aware that misappropriating billions of dollars for the sake of bombing people and occupying a country are just fine, while misappropriating billions of dollars for the sake of the environment is unforgiveable.
Personally, I have a problem with misappropriating billions of dollars for any reason, but then again, I try to be morally consistant. That's something psychomike doesn't have to worry about, being a bush supporter. Consistancy is like poison to Bush supporters. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| FUNT |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Old Job
Global warming should be taken seriuously. If it takes a little beefing up to scare dumb ass, lazy Americans to wake up and join the battle, all the more power. Shit couldnt hurt to change... |
So, you want to empower a movement by lying and then complain that unresponsive people are dumb and lazy for not blindly following the liars.
Scare people into conforming. Sounds familiar... |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
| remind me what part was over-exaggerated? |
|
|
| Psychomike |
It dawns on me that some people don't read the post that starts the topic: so here it is:
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.
Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
So, let's see.
People who agree with Gore think he has gone overboard.
The NY Times has a headline telling him to cool down the rhetoric.
And we discover for the first time, that there are scientists who DON'T agree with the scare tactics.
From the NY Times.
This is what you must answer. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
It dawns on me that some people don't read the post that starts the topic: so here it is:
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.
Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
So, let's see.
People who agree with Gore think he has gone overboard.
The NY Times has a headline telling him to cool down the rhetoric.
And we discover for the first time, that there are scientists who DON'T agree with the scare tactics.
From the NY Times.
This is what you must answer. |
It dawns on me that you're a self-important prick that's completely full of shit. :) |
|
|
| Psychomike |
I am not going to support handing trillons of dollars to the UN for any reason at all just because St Jimmy, Assboil and Angrychink assure me they can be trusted.
No way in hell. |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
| YEah- i aint reading thu all that shit to find my question: what part EXACTLY is over exaggerated? What part of Gore's movie is hype, its all backed by the scientific community. I dont buy into articles by Newsweek or Time or The Enquirer= give me the SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION that refutes the causes and effects of global warming. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
This part should answer the question Jackiesoldjob,
He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.
Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
When Dems and their flunkies told everyone that all of the scientific community agreed with Gore- it may have won them an Academy Award-
which was clearly deserved if it had been in the acting category-
but it has brought more and more scrutiny to the table.
Now that we know ALL the scientific community does NOT agree, I say hold off on giving the UN trillons of dollars to "educate" the world. |
|
|
| MatthewT |
| i believe Al Gore more about ManBearPig than i do about global warming. i'm super seriel. |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
This part should answer the question Jackiesoldjob,
But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
. |
I call bullshit, and here is what i was looking for- some ANTHROPOLGIST, who runs an INTERNET NEWSLETTER....CHALLENGED the claim of SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Thats like my social studies teacher refuting what my science teacher taught me. Seems like a quack trying to thro a wrench in things. LIke i said, let me see something printed in a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, and not some shady internet newspaper. Look I am not saying to give the f-ed up UN trillions of dollars. I think we as a country should lead by example and change our ways- then maybe we can point the finger. But we should be leading, and spending money towards rules/policies and technologies that WE benefit from as well as the rest of the world. ANd what is wrong with taking precautions to ensure a sustainable future, what is wrong with being safe??? Its not a democratic thing or republican thing, its doing whats right. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
The New York Times is now a shady internet newspaper?
Is this a joke? |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
I am not going to support handing trillons of dollars to the UN for any reason at all just because St Jimmy, Assboil and Angrychink assure me they can be trusted.
No way in hell. |
I haven't assured you of a goddamned thing, except that you're a stupid asshole.
I just like to point out how incredibly hypocritical you are in regards to government spending. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
I see. So we give the UN hundreds of billions. To raise "consciousness".
No thank you. |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
The New York Times is now a shady internet newspaper?
Is this a joke? |
Which was the newspaper who's star editor or whomever, got caught making up stories around the time of the election and was forced to retire??? Which scandal did that one belong too? Does Jayson Blair ring a bell?? Yeah, real credible...I am talking SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS. This isnt scrimmage- come back when your ready to play ball, acutally go back and stick ur head in the sand. I am done with you. YOu can't keep up with me, and i am done talking in circles. You be you and I be me. Its been real.... |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Old Job
Which was the newspaper who's star editor or whomever, got caught making up stories around the time of the election and was forced to retire??? Which scandal did that one belong too? Does Jayson Blair ring a bell?? Yeah, real credible...I am talking SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS. This isnt scrimmage- come back when your ready to play ball, acutally go back and stick ur head in the sand. I am done with you. YOu can't keep up with me, and i am done talking in circles. You be you and I be me. Its been real.... |
When talking to a Bush Supporter, it is best to avoid terms such as "science" and "credible", as they make the BS'r very uncomfortable. |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
When talking to a Bush Supporter, it is best to avoid terms such as "science" and "credible", as they make the BS'r very uncomfortable. |
Exactly why i am done with this arguement. I am done talking in circles. The sky is blue, but if you want to believe its plaid then go right ahead. Shu Shu Retarded Flu! |
|
|
| Psychomike |
So you guys have turned on the New York Times for this article?
Wow.
You know when your party refused to appear on Fox News it dawned on me that was what was wrong with your party. In a nutshell.
The smugness, the elitism. You can see it in this argument as well. There are no room for questions or other opinions.
And they have the audacity to throw the "nazi" term around?
Are you kidding me? |
|
|
| Psychomike |
As for Jackies old job, I am way older than most of you.
Yet many of you have no idea how to google, download, use acid or fruity loops programs- do you people play video games all day?
And I'm supposed to take your words for it?
It took 1 second to find this using google- and over 30,000 other articles.
Polar ice cap studies refute global warming
Published in: Environment News
Author: James M. Taylor
A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.
A study published in the December 3, 1999 issue of Science magazine, authored by Ola Johannessen, Elena Shalena, and Martin Miles, reported Arctic sea ice had declined by 14 percent from 1978 through 1998. In a related story, columnist Richard Kerr pondered "Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice?" The mainstream press ran with the story, giving dire warnings that global warming was upon us.
However, CO2 Science Magazine later noted that in the Johannessen study, "essentially all of the drop . . . occurs rather abruptly over a single period of not more than three years (87/88-90/91) and possibly only one year (89/90-90/91). Furthermore, it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward, sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased."
More recent studies of the polar ice caps verify CO2 Science Magazine's skepticism, and show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.
Antarctic sea ice edge expanding
A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.
A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.
Arctic ice thickening, expanding
A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.
Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.
Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.
Surface vs. satellite readings
Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.
However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.
"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations.
"While the greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of the world's climate is weak and far from being generally accepted by the scientific community," James L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors, observed in the August 4 Chicago Tribune.
Global warming proponents, on the other hand, now counter that warming, despite prior consensus to the contrary, might occur in the lower atmosphere only after a general warming of the Earth's surface.
Models shown to be inaccurate . . . again
The recent polar ice studies, which measured surface rather than atmospheric temperature trends (and which were far removed from the effects of urban heat islands and questionable third-world temperature readings), lend weight to the argument that satellite readings, not surface monitoring stations, are correct.
"In considering all of the above results, it is likely that the global extent of sea ice is on the rise. Such observational evidence flies in the face of model predictions of global warming that say climate will change first and to the greatest extent in the Earth's polar regions," concludes CO2 Science Magazine.
CO2 Science suggests that self-regulating mechanisms, such as clouds, enable the Earth to keep a relatively steady climate despite the changes in CO2 concentration that have been a regular part of Earth's history.
Viewing the new data in conjunction with other studies that properly filter out the imperfections of human-collected temperature readings, CO2 Science concludes, "There has been no global warming for the past 75 years." |
|
|
| FUNT |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Old Job
The sky is blue, but if you want to believe its plaid then go right ahead. Shu Shu Retarded Flu! |
So you have proof that global warming is caused by humans? |
|
|
| Psychomike |
| If he does, we can stop all the studies! |
|
|
| FUNT |
What?! You mean there are still scientific studies being done on the causes of global warming?!
Why? I though the matter was settled. |
|
|
| jokeland |
| Only 12 out of 50 aldermen in chicago were forced into a runoff. Three sitting aldermen were voted out of office, one of them being beaten by Jesse Jackson Jr.'s wife. The sitting mayor of chicago received nearly 75% of the vote. The election was hardly a rebellion. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by FUNT
So you have proof that global warming is caused by humans? |
Where was this insatiable need for proof in 2003 before we illegally invaded and occupied a sovereign nation?
Why is it that when someone's talking about helping people, or the environment, you guys become nit-pickers and sticklers for proof, but.....
When we're talking about war, or "nuking" someone, or rendering someone for torture, the thinnest wisp of evidence is all that's needed.
Hell, you don't even need to plan properly, or count the money involved - for killing, (especially brown people), you get a blank check from the right.
For helping, you must be absolutely certain of every single aspect and possible outcome of everything that's involved, and every scientist on the planet must agree, even those who don't study the science in question.
Why is that? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Ltank |
Quote: Originally posted by bababooey2uall
It is a matter of Nobel prize winning scientists unanimously having one opinion and Republican special interest fed assholes having the opposing opinion. Which one is more credible? |
Actually the opinion was not unanimous as the movie likes to present. |
|
|
| Jackies Old Job |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
Where was this insatiable need for proof in 2003 before we illegally invaded and occupied a sovereign nation?
Why is it that when someone's talking about helping people, or the environment, you guys become nit-pickers and sticklers for proof, but.....
When we're talking about war, or "nuking" someone, or rendering someone for torture, the thinnest wisp of evidence is all that's needed.
Hell, you don't even need to plan properly, or count the money involved - for killing, (especially brown people), you get a blank check from the right.
For helping, you must be absolutely certain of every single aspect and possible outcome of everything that's involved, and every scientist on the planet must agree, even those who don't study the science in question.
Why is that? :rolleyes: |
Wait a minute! Hold up- Your making sense, no fair!!! |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
For those who haven't given in to the propaganda yet- this is why when the liberals say do not dare question us, do as you're told I have problems:
When it began in 1996, the Oil-for-Food Program gave hope to millions of Iraqi people who had become the unintended victims of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. It allowed Iraq to sell its oil to finance purchases of humanitarian goods supervised by the United Nations.
But the Iraq war brought the Oil-for-Food Program to a sudden end, and subsequent investigations show the program was poorly managed and riddled with fraud. At a Senate hearing two weeks ago, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, who has been leading a seven-month investigation, laid out charges that Saddam Hussein himself pocketed billions of dollars manipulating the oil- for-food program.
SEN. NORM COLEMAN: The failure of the program wasn't just in providing food, medicine and comfort to the Iraqi people; the failure of the program was also not having strong oversight and checks and balances that would have prevented a small group of people and nations from raping billions -- billions -- of dollars from the people of Iraq.
And without the UN changing a thing, we are about to give them trillions to "educate people".
Have you all lost your minds? |
where do you see "trillions to educate people"? |
|
|
| Psychomike |
Fascinating to me that when confronted by unpleasentries the looney left and their hardened socialist masters turn to screaming about WMD.
Yet they never mention this, do they?:
Hillary Clinton knew years before she voted for the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs -- Bill Clinton lied about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacking the country in 1998.
Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election.
Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.
This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48729/
Don't expect them to admit Clinton fell for the lies Bush did from Intel.
The truth demolishes their name calling, diversions and just plain out and out lies. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Fascinating to me that when confronted by unpleasentries the looney left and their hardened socialist masters turn to screaming about WMD. |
You should change your name to GeriatricMike grampa... you seriously sound like my grampa. "Those damn commies... they're comin to GETCHA!!"
You and your "liberals are commies" crew are far more paranoid and desperate than 911 conspiracy theorists... there I said it.
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Yet they never mention this, do they?:
Hillary Clinton knew years before she voted for the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs -- Bill Clinton lied about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacking the country in 1998.
|
Jesus... here we go again... blame the clintons like a good little limbaugh clone...
there you go lil' buddy... doesn't that make you feel better? The people you voted for would never wrong you.. it's the other guys fault. Now go to sleep lil' guy and dream of a time when being a proud American actually meant something. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha!
Mike, you little cunt! Why did you run to GC start this piece of shit thread?
Is THIS the big NYT article you were peddling yesterday? The one DRUDGE was hyping? LOL!
You should have checked out your sources, bro........ I'll be right back ;) |
|
|
| demimonde |
al gore is a pompous fart and a hypocrite. he's the same piece of shit that argued for NAFTA which has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousand jobs and a dwindling middle class. there are things we as human beings can control.....poverty, conquering diseases, kindness to fellow human beings etc.
we have no control over "global warming". after listening to self-righteous preaching from private plane traveling politicians i've stopped recycling and use as much energy as i want. i resent being told how to live my life. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| You don't see Bush trying to overturn NAFTA Do you? The Republican love the low overhead and outsourcing as much as any Democrat. |
|
|
| FUNT |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
Where was this insatiable need for proof in 2003 before we illegally invaded and occupied a sovereign nation?
|
Good point. So if you have a problem with government's ability to get their facts straight in something as serious as war why give them a pass with something as inconsequential as the destruction of the planet?
And fuck Saddam Hussein. I'm glad he's dead. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Quote: Originally posted by demimonde
al gore is a pompous fart and a hypocrite. he's the same piece of shit that argued for NAFTA which has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousand jobs and a dwindling middle class. there are things we as human beings can control.....poverty, conquering diseases, kindness to fellow human beings etc. |
And the Republicans are on top of that eh? Katrina, Walter Reed, etc... and those tax cuts for the wealthy sure are helping the "dwindling middle class" flourish.
Quote: Originally posted by demimonde
we have no control over "global warming". after listening to self-righteous preaching from private plane traveling politicians i've stopped recycling and use as much energy as i want. i resent being told how to live my life. |
I've always loved the right wing's method of demonizing rich people who espouse liberal views... "the hollywood elite can't tell us blue collar americans how to live... fuck them!"
As if George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or any of the other rich closet faggots in the "political right" are "average blue collar americans" who live paycheck to paycheck... meanwhile the people you're voting for aren't telling you how to live your life... they're passing laws to ensure that you have to live your life the way they see fit ...
I don't expect you to understand any of that though... it's pretty obvious you don't understand much, and you probably vote republican. |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha!
Mike, you little cunt! Why did you run to GC start this piece of shit thread?
Is THIS the big NYT article you were peddling yesterday? The one DRUDGE was hyping? LOL!
You should have checked out your sources, bro........ I'll be right back ;) |
He went to GC because he knows his bullshit won't fly here.
Hey FuckheadMike, next time you post an "editorial" from the NY Times make sure it is an editorial, written by the NY Times Editorial Board, NOT an opinion piece from some Republican piece of shit.
FuckheadMike, Are you really that stupid or just dishonest? |
|
|
| | |
