Reply With QuoteThe Algore is nothing more than a carnival huckster selling snake oil from the back of his wagon. The world is full of suckers.
Why was Greenland GREEN when the Vikings settled there?
SUV emissions? Fer ****s sake.
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.
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.
Please re-read the above.
Gore just happens to be advocate on one side of the coin that you folks love to dump on any time the GW issue is mentioned. Not a scientist just a speaker.
The Algore is nothing more than a carnival huckster selling snake oil from the back of his wagon. The world is full of suckers.
Why was Greenland GREEN when the Vikings settled there?
SUV emissions? Fer ****s sake.
The difference between you and I is that I will listen to both sides of an issue,.
Which issue? I haven't seen a single PET ISSUE of yours that you listen to ANYTHING that opposes your "unsupported gut feeling".
Which issue do you actually CONSIDER both sides of?
You just know that An Inconvenient Truth has to valid information just because.
WHAT "valid information"?
A tremendous ammount of the information is (at best) innacurate, At worst, flat out lies.
The scientists who support it, virtually none are climatologists.
The climatologists who are named on the UN report, ARE SUING TO HAVE THEIR NAMES REMOVED, BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE and the UN refuses to remove their names on demand.
What Valid Information?
Al Gore CLAIMS that temperature follows CO2 levels, but that is a lie. He is lying about the chart he shows, which shows that CO2 emmissions FOLLOW TEMPERATURE CHANGE, which is the exact diametric OPPOSITE of Gore's claim.
The GW pushers show temperature charts which have had the midevil warming period that occured durring the Maunder Minimum ERASED. WHY ERASE A HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE??
WHAT VALID INFORMATION????????
There is still a great deal to learn before it is a define ate yes or no.
Not what you said the LAST time you "debated" this.
Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today. Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view.
ultra, 19 April, 2007 Post #20.
The orriginal "swindle" thread (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showth...arming+swindle)
Which issue? I haven't seen a single PET ISSUE of yours that you listen to ANYTHING that opposes your "unsupported gut feeling".
Which issue do you actually CONSIDER both sides of?
WHAT "valid information"?
A tremendous ammount of the information is (at best) innacurate, At worst, flat out lies.
The scientists who support it, virtually none are climatologists.
The climatologists who are named on the UN report, ARE SUING TO HAVE THEIR NAMES REMOVED, BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE and the UN refuses to remove their names on demand.
What Valid Information?
Al Gore CLAIMS that temperature follows CO2 levels, but that is a lie. He is lying about the chart he shows, which shows that CO2 emmissions FOLLOW TEMPERATURE CHANGE, which is the exact diametric OPPOSITE of Gore's claim.
The GW pushers show temperature charts which have had the midevil warming period that occured durring the Maunder Minimum ERASED. WHY ERASE A HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE??
WHAT VALID INFORMATION????????
Not what you said the LAST time you "debated" this.
Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today. Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view.
ultra, 19 April, 2007 Post #20.
The orriginal "swindle" thread (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showth...arming+swindle)
Have you givin up reading big guy?
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 definite yes or no.
Smokin, you are a mechanic and a soldier. You're not an authority on climate. So stop acting like you are
Apparently I'm more of an authority on reality and history than you are.
Please re-read the above.
Gore just happens to be advocate on one side of the coin that you folks love to dump on any time the GW issue is mentioned. Not a scientist just a speaker.
Anybody needs to read the above anything it's you. You are the one saying that Gore's BS is must watching in order to have a dog in this race. If I am to debate I need to consider his tripe you said?
Gore is at the forefront of pushing the GW issue onto the front page, making all the claims of the end of the world if it isn't stopped. He is the part we are against because he is so full of untruths. Reality is what WE are pushing and you won't admit there is work being done to improve environmental issues.
You don't want to debate or agree with anything, it seems you just want to argue.
Apparently I'm more of an authority on reality and history than you are.
It's like talking with a 3 year old......
I keep expecting to see "I know I am, but what are you!"
Can I jump in on the fun? If you accept global warming (Temp rising.....regardless of cause) then you are believing in "fact". Unless of course you begin to look at the source of the historical data. I work in the environmental field.I am not and do not claim to be an expert in this particular field. I do however review a good bit of data which relates to GW. When all of the facts are in I believe that there is only one conclusion that can be accurately derived. That is:
Temperatures on the planet may or may not be rising faster than in previous global climate changes. This increase (if it exists) may be due to human contribution, however this is not likely due to the sheer volumes of emissions involved. The human contribution is of such a small percentage that any increase in climate change may be calculated, but not measured since this increase will likely be so small that it will fall into the "noise" of measurement. Man may be able to reduce the speed of climate change but it will not come from worrying about methane emissions from cattle. If scientist could find a way of stopping one volcano from erupting they will prevent more emisions than humans will contribute over many years.In short we are not the culprit.It is mother natures way of periodically purging.
That is pretty much my position exactly. There may well be WARMING occuring, but the tiny ammount of the emmissions certain groups wish to use to blame it on mankind pushes the claim of MAN-MADE G.W. into the realm of the rediculous.
6 billion humans cause 5% of the CO2 emmissions.
300 million Americans cause .0027% of the CO2 emmissions.
Once before, I noted .0027% compares to 35 feet from L.A. to New York City.
The earth's environment is not THAT precarious.
Add in the latest Al Gore claim that if we do nothing, we have 45 years to live.
Changing .0027% gets us what? Another 20 days, thats what.
MARS IS WARMING. Why???????
The earth's temperature has millinea of history of changing, both warmer AND COLDER, BEFORE man even came along, let alone before we invented the airplane, the power plant, and the SUV.
Who remembers the GLOBAL COOLING and "aerosols" crap from 3o years ago?
Polution is one thing.
Clean air is good.
Clean water is even better.
M.M.G.W. is idiocy.
Posting Permissions