Reply With QuoteThe difference between you and I is that I will listen to both sides of an issue, which, in the case is the climate change issue. You just know that An Inconvenient Truth has to valid information just because.
Hard to have an intelligent debate about this issue when you didn't listen to what both positions are prior to making your decision. I can't respect a view which is uninformed.
You guys just keep praising yourselves.
I don't claim to know all there is about this issue. I happen to accept that the amount of sh*t that we pump into the air could have a negative effect on many things, the climate being one of them. There is still a great deal to learn before it is a define ate yes or no.
I listen to both sides. I just don't listen to Al Gore or Mikey Moore neither of which have credibility.
Part of intelligent debate is separating the truth from the fiction. Both of the above clowns strive off fiction.
Here's an example of how I think. John Kerry during his campaign would come out and tell one of his big whoppers knowing fully well that is was BS. The whopper would hit the front page and everyone would ooh and aah about the statement. Next step after digesting the lie, it would be questioned. At this juncture JK would retract his statement and the retraction would be placed on the inside back page of section D. The intelligiencia would realize it to be what it was, BS but a great deal of folks would never see the retraction and file it away as fact. Thus JK always got a large percentage to fall for his tripe.
This is pretty much the way Moore and Gore work. I choose to not listen to their crap, therefore I don't have to sift through it to find the needle of truth in their BS haystack.
If you would read as well as you claim, you would stop dwelling on the same points of contention. You make no mention of my points about there being people advancing real technologies, but dwell on the point no one gives the Gore view any review. Gore is not a relevant source and has been culled from the debate.
Furthermore I don't believe you will ever get a firm answser either way on GW as there is much more involved than present day science can discern. That in and of itself is what the "real" scientists are trying to convey. Gore and his supporters on the other hand state in no uncertain turns that manmade means are causing the phenomenom "Global Warming" and it is 100% fact.
I don't buy the 100% and the vast majority of "real" scientists don't either. Therefore why isn't the media and others focusing on the facts? Facts that we are doing a lot of research and work to develop new and better technology to improve environmental conditions and to eliminate present day problems. This is the positive that isn't spectacular enough to turn on the media and doesn't do Gore any good because nobody needs his egotistical self serving asse mucking up the works for his personal gains.
Why will you not focus on what is really being done rather than what Al Gore "Claims"? That's my question.
