More TRUTH about Al's movie

So you agree then that the global alarmists peer review their own work?? I think we are making progress.

Do you even know what a peer review is? I already provided the definition for you, shall I read it for you also? Maybe I can find one drawn in crayon?

Help me to help you, Mike....

Where in your definition of peer-review does it say that it is review by friends and close colleagues that have the same viewpoint the researcher does.?

Peer review, to be valid, must be independent. And given that it is extremely difficult to get Mann's data/methods from him, I would say he is hiding from real peer review. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

And Lindzen has been very critical of the IPCC report...thats another subject you have limited knowledge of....intellectual honesty. How is it that you keep bringing up the tobacco industry?? If you think working for them is a crime, you are, again, mistaken. Not to mention that it, in no way, hurts anyones credibility.

Ummmm it says "colleagues" in the very first dictionary definition of the term... Do I need to define "colleague" for you, also?

The rest of your made up definition is just your usual bullshit you add to every sentence.

This is hilarious.

As with most subjects, Mike believes he can change the dictionary definition of terms to suit his backwards position.....

I predict this will mean the end of this thread, as Mike will need to hit the reset button again, just like the first 2 global warming threads, his "disgusting dem ad" thread, etc., etc., etc...

Any bets on what the new title will be?

Like it or not Mike, peer-review is how science works. It can be a long, harsh, and sometimes even unfair (as we have seen on this board people get married to their ideas and they are hard to give up) process. But given enough time and evidence peer review works.

If Gore weren't a politician I MIGHT agree that the inclusion of "factual presentations" would mean that we are speaking truth. But the "over representation" means exaggeration. The whole phase was carefully constructed by a very bright politician to explain away any inconsistencies in his movie.

I brought it up, but this is the wrong tread for this, but what the hell. Can't argue with you about the WMD, but they have proved links b/w Saddam and al-Qaeda. There is no link to 9-11, but there is to al-Qaeda.

LOL I think I just figured out what business you're in... I had no idea there was such a market for psychics. Because that is what you would have to be to make a statement like that....

It's not like Gore said it with no facts to back him up. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the field back his position.

I readily admit that that is no more than my opinion and I cannot prove it to be true. Still sticking with it though. I posted several credible links to Big groups who do not support your "consensus" view. Much of the world does not buy into this hype. Also don't forget...

"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magazine, Oct 1989)

Schneider is still at the forefront of this issue. Honesty does not seem to be a commodity these guys treasure.

All of this about Gore's movie comes from a believer in man made global warming:

As someone who has come to the view that greenhouse-effect science is now persuasive, I'm glad Gore made a movie that will help average voters understand the subject. An Inconvenient Truth is worthy in content, admirable in intent, and motivated by the sense of civic responsibility Hollywood on the whole has abandoned.

This is why I think it amounts to an ad for his next campaign:

Mostly we see Gore talking and pointing at charts, interspersed with detours into the former vice president's political career: the Florida recount, Gore's stump-speech telling of his son's auto accident and his sister's tragic death from lung cancer. The political sequences have all the heft of a video press release: Time and again we are shown crowds looking adoringly at Gore, or cheering him on. And Katherine Harris may be a natural disaster, but what's she doing in a movie about climate change? If director Davis Guggenheim wanted to film a biography of Gore, he should simply have done so.
When Gore isn't being applauded, Guggenheim presents him as alone and melancholy: walking alone, musing alone, standing alone in a darkened barn. The scenes are meant to convey our inability to imagine the burden the former vice president bears. But they make the political part feel contrived, since Gore scarcely suffers solitude; he has a wonderful, loving family and participates in many public causes.

But let's get to the science:

Considering the multiple times Gore has given his greenhouse slide show (he says "thousands"), it's jarring that the movie was not scrubbed for factual precision. For instance, this 2005 joint statement by the science academies of the Western nations, including the National Academy of Sciences, warns of sea-level rise of four to 35 inches in the 21st century; this amount of possible sea-level rise is current consensus science.

Yet An Inconvenient Truth asserts that a sea-level rise of 20 feet is a realistic short-term prospect. Gore says the entire Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could melt rapidly; the film then jumps to animation of Manhattan flooded. Well, all that ice might melt really fast, and a UFO might land in London, too. The most recent major study of ice in the geologic past found that about 130,000 years ago the seas were "several meters above modern levels" and that polar temperatures sufficient to cause a several-meter sea-level rise may eventually result from artificial global warming. The latest major study of austral land ice detected a thawing rate that would add two to three inches to sea level during this century. Such findings are among the arguments that something serious is going on with Earth's climate. But the science-consensus forecast about sea-level rise is plenty bad enough. Why does An Inconvenient Truth use disaster-movie speculation ?

That's a funny criticism coming from someone who already admitted the Bush admin lied about WMD to sell a war, yet for some reason I don't get the impression you have a problem with that.....

I never said ALL scientists back his position, just a large majority of them. The IPCC was made up of thousands of scientists from more than 100 countries, so don't pretend this is a belief held exclusively in the US.

Still more:

An Inconvenient Truth spends too little time on what audiences might do about global warming, too much time trying to impress us with the Ask Mr. Science side of Gore's personality. Fewer details might have made the movie more effective, especially given that some details are off. For instance, Gore spends a while saying Earth's atmosphere is relatively thin, then somberly declares, "The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide." Thickness is not the issue. Carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced by fossil-fuel combustion and forest fires, has molecular bonds that vibrate on the same wavelengths at which infrared energy radiates upward from Earth's surface; the vibration warms the CO2, trapping heat. The main atmospheric gas, nitrogen, does not absorb energy on those wavelengths. It is the chemistry of carbon dioxide, not its density, that matters. (See this chemistry page maintained by the carbon dioxide study center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.) Anyway, you don't really need to know how greenhouse gases function. Why does Gore insist on giving a wrong explanation?
The movie takes a wacky side-trip into a conspiracy theory about Philip Cooney, who was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute and then became chief of staff of George W. Bush's Council on Environmental Quality—and then got a plush office at ExxonMobil. Gore asserts Cooney was "in charge of environmental policy in the White House," which is nonsense. The EPA administrators, Josh Bolten, Andrew Card, James Connaughton, Mitch Daniels, John Graham, Al Hubbard, and Karl Rove, have been Bush's go-to figures for environment policy; and Connaughton, to whom Cooney reported, is green as can be. Gore implies Cooney's secret mission was to sabotage such efforts as the federal Climate Change Science Program. If so, Cooney better keep his day job, since that program recently declared "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."

An Inconvenient Truth comes to the right conclusions about the seriousness of global warming; plus we ought to be grateful these days for anything earnest at the cineplex. But the film flirts with double standards. Laurie David, doyenne of Rodeo Drive environs, is one of the producers. As Eric Alterman noted in the Atlantic, David "reviles owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable, a private jet." For David to fly in a private jet from Los Angeles to Washington would burn about as much petroleum as driving a Hummer for a year; if she flew back in the private jet, that's two Hummer-years. Gore's movie takes shots at Republicans and the oil industry, but by the most amazing coincidence says nothing about the poor example set by conspicuous consumers among the Hollywood elite. Broadly, An Inconvenient Truth denounces consumerism, yet asks of its audience no specific sacrifice. "What I look for is signs we are really changing our way of life, and I don't see it," Gore intones with his signature sigh. As he says this, we see him at an airport checking in to board a jet, where he whips out his laptop. If "really changing our way of life" is imperative, what's Gore doing getting on a jetliner? Jets number among the most resource-intensive objects in the world.

This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases "is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical." Wouldn't deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy. But the last century's headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore's airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn't seem to find unethical. The former vice president clicks up a viewgraph showing the human population has grown more during his lifetime than in all previous history combined. He looks at the viewgraph with aversion, as if embarrassed by humanity's proliferation. Population growth is a fantastic achievement—though one that engenders problems we must fix, including inequality and greenhouse gases. Gore wants to have it that the greener-than-thou crowd is saintly, while the producers of cars, power, food, fiber, roads, and roofs are appalling. That is, he posits a simplified good versus a simplified evil. Just like a movie!

http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/

Is it me, or is Tourette-ticker taking quite awhile to put up the links he claims he has-- while still having time for lots of other posts...?

I am not convinced that a large majority of climatologists do back him. I have given several links to big groups who do not.

I have serious questions about how we got into Iraq. Sorry, you don't know me as well as you think you do. But this guy didn't use nuance, he said we have decide to be honest or effective.

And read the story I just posted and tell me what you thing of Gore's statement now.

I get the feeling you are the one who defends his side blindly regardless of the facts. (don't get me wrong, your posts are well thought out and you argue them well, you just seem to get incapable of contesting anything on your side of the debate)

Sorry, I thought you might respond to some on the ones I have already posted before I wasted my time digging for more.

Is it me, or does it not matter what gets posted you are going to ignore what you don't like?

Wrong. I told you I would answer you after you completed your answer to my post by putting up the links you claim you have.

Put 'em up and we'll continue.

Guess you missed these

and this one.

sorry don't have time to hunt for and paste every link in the world. These seem like a good start.

I didn't ask you for "every link in the world"

Just the ones you claimed you had that backed up the unsupported material you posted.

1) Why, NCMike. Looks like you are actually capable of answering point by point. So if you have overcome your Bush-sized case of cowardice, you can go back like a big boy and face your errors, which I pointed out to you, point by point. Will you? Or will you still cut n run?

Who's giving odds on NCMike06 cutting and runing again?

2) There were NOT two sides on the need to win the Cold War. Are you not aware that Liberals and Conservatives both worked to win the Cold War (despite your pathetic ditto-head caricature and historical re-write)?

3) Again, there are not two sides on the need to defeat terrorism. Or are you counting all the right-wingers who had no stomach for the fight against anti-abortion terrorists?

4) I'd say that cutting taxes on the rich during a time of war counts as being on the wrong side. Don't you? Especally since Buh's tenure turned record surpluses into record deficits.

5) Are you saying you disagree with the taking of private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public"?

...being wrong.

6) Because rapists always offer that choice, don't they NCMike06?

In the Bile, God says that killing a fetus is not murder as long as the pregnant woman is not killed. I know you think very highly of yourself, but I still prefer to take God's word over yours.

Because that's Kathleen Harris' job.

This is a misrepresentation on your part.
That is what I said. I never said I HAD any links, but I dug up several to back up my position. I can find more, but what is the point? You will always say it's not enough. You haven't addressed any of the links I have already put up.

Dont take the bet, he still hasn't paid me!

Does it really say that? Can you give me a link, I would love you use it!

1) If you are saying you have no love for Bush, I will gladly retract that. Do you have no love for Bush?

2) What is your relationship with Bush? What is your relationship to the Republicans? What is your relationship to the conservatives?

3) But you DID deny what the majority of climate scientists say about global warming. Which means you’ve got some splainin’ to do about how you can “accept pure science where ever it comes from†but not accept pure science when it comes from the majority of climate scientists. Go ahead. Try.

4) Great. Now we’re getting somewhere. How do you define a rush to war?

5) Bush has had evidence of a threat from Iraq and evidence of a threat from global warming. Bush has had evidence that Iraq is not a threat and evidence that global warming is not a threat. Would you say the Bush administration has moved at the same SPEED in taking drastic and costly action to address each problem? (please don’t waste time here discussing merits, just answer the question.)

6) If not, which threat did Bush move FASTER to take drastic and costly action to address?

7) How would you compare the relative SPEED of Bush’s government action on both?

8) In fact, would not the SPEED of Bush’s move to address the evidence of an Iraq threat is so far out of proportion of the speed of Bush’s move to address the evidence of a global warming threat that it constitutes a RUSH?

9) If you don’t agree, the Bush administration does not deny the urgency of what it saw as a threat that justified war before all the facts were in. Remember “…we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."?

10) Remember when the majority of members of the UN Security Council refused to support Bush’s military solution to the crisis, and so Bush and the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq anyway?

11) Remember Bush not allowing the weapons inspectors to do their job (and then lying and blaming Saddam for “kicking out the weapons inspectors�

12) If it was not a rush, Bush would have let the inspectors do their job and Bush would have worked with the security council. Instead, Bush rushed and the costs have been very high. How does that compare with Bush’s non-rush to take action against global warming?

13) BushCorp is a clearly satirical name for Bush and the collection of super-wealthy cronies that installed him in office and have profited to a monstrous extent because Bush and the Republican-controlled House, Senate, and Supreme Court have been focused on exploiting government to funnel money to them and away from working people. Any other basic questions?

14) Did I say that Bush personally profited yet?

15) Perhaps Bush has, perhaps he has not. Are you certain he has not?

16) But what I said was that BushCorp clearly has profited already, and if W Bush himself has not directly profited yet, he will profit very handsomely from his war very soon, when his father dies. The Bush family has not denied that George H W Bush made a pile of cash from the Iraq war. As a recent board member of the Carlyle Group (which reportedly went from 43rd among defense contractors in 2002 to 11th due in part to the war in Iraq) GHW Bush made a lot of money that the younger Bush will inherit. Do you support that?

17) The younger Bush will also have no pesky heir-head taxes to pay! What a coincidence! Do you support that, too?

18) That’s the tip of the iceberg. Bush cronies are cleaning up with sole-source contracts in Iraq that went to Bush donors without legitimate competition from other contractors. The run up in Cheney’s Halliburton has been much-discussed so it needs little mention here. Unless you are ignorant of that, too. Are you?

19) Great. Since you did not “actually answer THAT question†but instead answered the question you hoped I would have asked, you lose. I would prefer my $100,000 in cash.

20) Now that you have finally cited some sources we can get to them next.

21) Why not?

22) . Enjoy your dinner. By the way, I notice you deny Limbaugh, but you don’t deny Bill O’Reilly. Why is that?

23) So to you it is an insult to say you get your facts from Limbaugh or O’Rielly? Why? Would you care to tell that to all the right-wingers here?

I'm afraid that is not the case. You did say you had links.

I said "Cite your sources. Where do you get your facts?"

You said "About to take the kids out to dinner, but I will give you links tonight or in the morning."