Weather Network and 30,000 Scientists to SUE Al Gore for Fraud.

[BlueQuarter]

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/5162/

Doubt they'll do it..
But can't just blame crazy ol' Gore, can we?

[ROFLStomp]

I would watch this debate.

[American Infidel]

A debate would be lovely. Unfortunately, the Goracle has deemed the debate is "over"!

Long ago, I also mentioned that the radical environmentalists groups were a fringe cult, or religious group. Finally, it's being mentioned.

[wra]

I would watch this debate.

Gore wont debate at any rate. He's already turned down at least 3 challenges my meteriologists that I remember.

[droogsteve]

You can't sue someone for being wrong and you can't sue them for refusing to debate you. To sue for fraud, they'd have to prove that Gore DOESN'T believe in global warming and is deliberately lying, which is obviously impossible. All of which they must be well aware unless they're brain dead idiots.

Conclusion: Attention whoring. They're hoping the ridiculously empty threat to sue will get them some press.

[Amadeus]

To paraphrase George Carlin: This world has endured billions of years worth of asteroids, comets, floods, droughts, ice ages, tsunamis etc etc. Do you really think some plastic bottles from 20 years ago are going to be enough to destroy the world?

The Earth has endured before we ever even existed, and it will continue to exist until the sun blows up, which is supposed to be in about 5 billion years according to most calculations.

[rand0m]

Wait are these the same scientists that aren't scientists and dead?

[droogsteve]

To paraphrase George Carlin: This world has endured billions of years worth of asteroids, comets, floods, droughts, ice ages, tsunamis etc etc. Do you really think some plastic bottles from 20 years ago are going to be enough to destroy the world?

The Earth has endured before we ever even existed, and it will continue to exist until the sun blows up, which is supposed to be in about 5 billion years according to most calculations.

Ummm....yeah.

But the thing is, no one, not even Gore, is claiming the world will be destroyed. They're claiming that climate change brought on by greenhouse gasses will make life on earth inhospitable to the species that now occupy it.

[Shameless]

So many things wrong with this thread...

First: The Weather Channel isn't suing Gore, John Coleman is. Seriously.

Second: To become one of these scientists, all you need is an scientific undergrad degree. Have a gander at the scientists that signed it Here (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html). Yes, 3,069 people with degrees in medicine signed it. 9,992 with degrees in engineering and general science signed it. 903 with degrees in computer science signed it. How are these people experts in GW?

Third: Of the 9,000 with PhDs, there is absolutely no requirement for any proficiency in climatology. Many are MD's, many more have PhD's in things like mathematics. Here's the full list of names. (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php)

Fourth: There is no oversight of petition signers. Anyone can sign it, which would explain why someone like Alan Caruba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Caruba) is listed on a petition "solely for scientists".

Fifth: This isn't a recent petition; in fact, the petition has been around since 1998. Some of the signers are currently deceased.

Sixth: The sponsoring institution is the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which started the petition by initially bulk mailing a fraudulent scientific paper (under the guise of an official document put out by the NAS) authored by Arthur and Zachary Robinson (a biochemist with no experience in climatology and his 22 year old son). 15,000 signed this ultimately fraudulent petition. That's nearly half of the signers on the final petition. Come on. Source. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition)

There is more, but this seemed to be the most egregious. Note: I am not giving my endorsement to Global Warming, but by taking the OP's video as any shred of proof against it, you are doing yourself a great disservice, because this petition is absolute propaganda.

EDIT: BTW, I just how Coleman says that the claim is that carbon dioxide will "turn the climate of earth into an oven and we're all gonna bake and die". What a fucking creep.

[Amadeus]

They're claiming that climate change brought on by greenhouse gasses will make life on earth inhospitable to the species that now occupy it.

According to them, the damages we're seeing now are from the industrial age 100 years ago, and that it may already be too late to make it any better.

Buying cloth bags from Whole Foods is not going to save the environment.

Even without our intervention/existence, the dinosaurs apparently died out from an asteroid/ice age. Species going extinct is apparently a part of life that we can't change.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

So many things wrong with this thread...

First: The Weather Channel isn't suing Gore, John Coleman is. Seriously.

Second: To become one of these scientists, all you need is an scientific undergrad degree. Have a gander at the scientists that signed it Here (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html). Yes, 3,069 people with degrees in medicine signed it. 9,992 with degrees in engineering and general science signed it. 903 with degrees in computer science signed it. How are these people experts in GW?

Third: Of the 9,000 with PhDs, there is absolutely no requirement for any proficiency in climatology. Many are MD's, many more have PhD's in things like mathematics. Here's the full list of names. (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php)

Fourth: There is no oversight of petition signers. Anyone can sign it, which would explain why someone like Alan Caruba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Caruba) is listed on a petition "solely for scientists".

Fifth: This isn't a recent petition; in fact, the petition has been around since 1998. Some of the signers are currently deceased.

Sixth: The sponsoring institution is the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which started the petition by initially bulk mailing a fraudulent scientific paper (under the guise of an official document put out by the NAS) authored by Arthur and Zachary Robinson (a biochemist with no experience in climatology and his 22 year old son). 15,000 signed this ultimately fraudulent petition. That's nearly half of the signers on the final petition. Come on. Source. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition)

There is more, but this seemed to be the most egregious. Note: I am not giving my endorsement to Global Warming, but by taking the OP's video as any shred of proof against it, you are doing yourself a great disservice, because this petition is absolute propaganda.

EDIT: BTW, I just how Coleman says that the claim is that carbon dioxide will "turn the climate of earth into an oven and we're all gonna bake and die". What a fucking creep.


So then why do Al Gore and his posse refuse to debate this issue?

[Shameless]

So then why do Al Gore and his posse refuse to debate this issue?

I have no idea why Gore isn't debating-again, I'm not promoting his idea of global warming, either.

But the 30,000 scientist petition is total garbage. Don't get sucked into it believing it is accurate.

[Spike Lee]

So then why do Al Gore and his posse refuse to debate this issue?

Probably because the time for debate is over. There is enough evidence despite what a fraudulent petition says.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

Probably because the time for debate is over. There is enough evidence despite what a fraudulent petition says.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

That's what Al Gore says- "No debate! You guys are just stupid!"

If there's so much evidence, he should have no problem debating those who don't believe what he says.

[Shameless]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

That's what Al Gore says- "No debate! You guys are just stupid!"

If there's so much evidence, he should have no problem debating those who don't believe what he says.

Well, I would assume that Gore, himself, won't debate because he is not a scientist, and would thus be destroyed by one from the other side.

If a prominent scientist in support of MMGW was asked to debate, and declined, it would be noteworthy, but I haven't seen any evidence of this.

[kevinsmith]

Well, I would assume that Gore, himself, won't debate because he is not a scientist, and would thus be destroyed by one from the other side.

If a prominent scientist in support of MMGW was asked to debate, and declined, it would be noteworthy, but I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But considering he is a major face and voice for that side of things, and that he apparently felt he had the expertise to make a documentary about it, he should be armed with the knowledge to debate. I'm just saying...

[Spike Lee]

But considering he is a major face and voice for that side of things, and that he apparently felt he had the expertise to make a documentary about it, he should be armed with the knowledge to debate. I'm just saying...

I'm sure he could argue well for it. Especially since most of these deniers use old claims that have been addressed.

[snyderman]

Signing the petition is part of a doctorate thesis from Bob Jones University.

[kevinsmith]

I'm sure he could argue well for it. Especially since most of these deniers use old claims that have been addressed.

Well then, he should be able to destroy the chosen representative for the group.
I'm just saying, if his position is so strong, he should be able to do it. But your post sounds like he has the expertise to make a documentary aimed at making us all believe something, but not enough expertise to air those postulations in a manner where he would have to defend them.
If it were someone on the other side doing the same thing, you'd be calling them out, and I'd agree with you.

[Spike Lee]

Well then, he should be able to destroy the chosen representative for the group.
I'm just saying, if his position is so strong, he should be able to do it. But your post sounds like he has the expertise to make a documentary aimed at making us all believe something, but not enough expertise to air those postulations in a manner where he would have to defend them.
If it were someone on the other side doing the same thing, you'd be calling them out, and I'd agree with you.

Because there is no need to argue with this guy. He has a better use of his time helping with pushing for ideas and legislation concerning climate change. Do you think Cindy Sheehan and George Bush should have that meet up she has been requesting for?

[silverspade14]

I signed that petition a while ago and I'm not a scientist.

[droogsteve]

Signing the petition is part of a doctorate thesis from Bob Jones University.

I almost went to Bob Jones, but I missed the prerequisites. I only witnessed three visions of Christ, two demonic possessions, and one miracle. :wah:

[Mojoe77]

Probably because the time for debate is over. There is enough evidence despite what a fraudulent petition says.

The time for debate is over? That sounds pretty Fascist to me:

"Everyday we hear about the "war on cancer," the "war on drugs," the "War on Poverty", and exhortations to make this or that social challenge the "moral equivalent of war". From health care to gun control to global warming, liberals insist that we need to "get beyond politics" and "put ideological differences behind us" in order to "do the people's business." The experts know what to do, we are told; therefore the time for debate is over. This, albiet in a nicer and more benign form, is the logic of fascism..." Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, Pg 6.

From a National Post Article:

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

We have covered Antarctica many times in past essays, and despite literally thousands of websites claiming that some calamity is occurring in Antarctica related to global warming, we side with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in this matter. Magazine covers have wonderful pictures of melting of the Antarctic, but IPCC in their 2007 report clearly states “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region” (in fact, Antarctic sea ice extent has recently set record highs for both total areal extent as well as total extent anomaly (see here and here)). Furthermore, IPCC tells the world (and we wonder if anyone is listening) “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/21/antarctica-snowfall-increase/#more-301

You should visit this site more:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Looks like the time for debate ISN'T over. Good day, Fascist.

[menace64]

On one level or the other, humanity is doing harm to the earth. There's no reasoning out of that. Rampant pollution and wanton disregard of our environment (even on the most minute of extremes) is accelerating.

I believe - right or wrong about MMGW - Al Gore is doing an extremely good job of bringing accountability into the minds of millions of people. Just making the claim that we *could* be hurting our planet might very-well be putting us back on a more eco-friendly existence.

I think, rather than ask if what we're doing as a species is harmful, we should be asking why we are doing something that *might* be harmful. And then we should stop doing it.

[Spike Lee]

The time for debate is over? That sounds pretty Fascist to me:

"Everyday we hear about the "war on cancer," the "war on drugs," the "War on Poverty", and exhortations to make this or that social challenge the "moral equivalent of war". From health care to gun control to global warming, liberals insist that we need to "get beyond politics" and "put ideological differences behind us" in order to "do the people's business." The experts know what to do, we are told; therefore the time for debate is over. This, albiet in a nicer and more benign form, is the logic of fascism..." Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, Pg 6.

From a National Post Article:



http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289



http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/21/antarctica-snowfall-increase/#more-301

You should visit this site more:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Looks like the time for debate ISN'T over. Good day, Fascist.
No thanks. I am not going to take Jonah Goldberg's advice on anything, much less the definition of facism and trying to characterize it as a product of the left. (Facism is a ultra-right wing affair)

Most of the 'hypothesis' against global warming are either logical fallacies, already accounted for or flat out wrong.

I suggest you use look at this site which debunks most, if not all, 'skeptic's claims.

[Lividum]

Even without our intervention/existence, the dinosaurs apparently died out from an asteroid/ice age. Species going extinct is apparently a part of life that we can't change.

Yes, background species extinction is always there, with the occasional mass die-off. Kind of like what's happening now: the Holocene extinction event. It's between 30,000 - 50,000 species gone a year right now. A couple hundred of those might be from background extinction. The rest go extinct completely because of human action. Not necessarily global climate change, but just the simple thing of cutting down forests and releasing chemicals into the environment ends up decimating biodiversity.

We can change that since we're the ones responsible. We'd be stupid as fuck to keep ruining food chains and altering environments to the point where all specialist species die off. It will impact us sooner or later.

Holding no accountability for the proven human-caused environmental degradation (stop thinking about MMGW for a second) is illogical. Environmental sustainability should be a priority because without a stable environment, our quality of life will go down severely.

I have mixed thoughts on the whole GW controversy, but I don't think it's too horrible to change certain aspects of society that damage us and the environment (e.g. mercury, lead, and dioxins in water sources acting as carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens for us, as well species that are susceptible to minute quantities of chemicals like amphibians).

[Mojoe77]

No thanks. I am not going to take Jonah Goldberg's advice on anything, much less the definition of facism and trying to characterize it as a product of the left. (Facism is a ultra-right wing affair)

Most of the 'hypothesis' against global warming are either logical fallacies, already accounted for or flat out wrong.

I suggest you use look at this site which debunks most, if not all, 'skeptic's claims.

So basically you disagree with Jonah Goldberg's book - something that no one can dispute - without even reading it? Go ahead and read Mr. Goldberg's book, then I would like to meet you in person and have you tell me (with a straight face) that fascism is a phenomenon of the right. Or, according to your fascist logic, is the time for debate over? Is there a "third way"? :lol:

I find it hard to believe that humans can affect climate change. Are you aware that warming and cooling has happened before humans even existed? Are you aware that the sun is the single most influencial factor regarding temperature? There is no doubt that humans are emitting more and more CO2 every minute/day/year. And if MMGW's whole argument is this: more CO2 = higher temperatures then why was 2007 one of the coolest years on record? Why was March of 2008 one of the coolest on record? Where are those record hurricane seasons? Do you think we should convert to ethanol and starve people? Go to the website i provided you in my previous post and point out the fallacies and "flat out wrong" evidence.

[Kazimierz]

I find it hard to believe that humans can affect climate change. Are you aware that warming and cooling has happened before humans even existed? Are you aware that the sun is the single most influencial factor regarding temperature? There is no doubt that humans are emitting more and more CO2 every minute/day/year. And if MMGW's whole argument is this: more CO2 = higher temperatures then why was 2007 one of the coolest years on record? Why was March of 2008 one of the coolest on record? Where are those record hurricane seasons? Do you think we should convert to ethanol and starve people? Go to the website i provided you in my previous post and point out the fallacies and "flat out wrong" evidence.

Increased carbon dioxide levels vs increased global temperatures are correlated. Over decades. Two months of measurements that fluctuate disprove decades of statistics? Please.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2007-07-29-more-hurricanes_N.htm) Hurricanes. Again, fluctuate year to year, but over time are rising in frequency, as well as the frequency of the strongest.

[Spike Lee]

So basically you disagree with Jonah Goldberg's book - something that no one can dispute - without even reading it? Go ahead and read Mr. Goldberg's book, then I would like to meet you in person and have you tell me (with a straight face) that fascism is a phenomenon of the right. Or, according to your fascist logic, is the time for debate over? Is there a "third way"? :lol:

There might be something to say when even the The American Conservative pans the book and says (http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/review.html) that Goldberg has no idea what he is talking about.

I find it hard to believe that humans can affect climate change. Are you aware that warming and cooling has happened before humans even existed?
Yes, I am. Did you know the IPCC and every scientist that has studied this knows that. It's something they teach even in a simple high school class.


Are you aware that the sun is the single most influencial factor regarding temperature?
See above.

And if MMGW's whole argument is this: more CO2 = higher temperatures then why was 2007 one of the coolest years on record?
2007's dramatic cooling is driven by La Nina which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature and should recede in mid-2008.

Why was March of 2008 one of the coolest on record? Where are those record hurricane seasons?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

Do you think we should convert to ethanol and starve people?
Oh please. Ethanol is well on its way out.

He was an advocate placince racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

[Fungus Amungus]

I support global warming, just think of the Eskimos damnit!

[chrisvet]

A debate would be lovely. Unfortunately, the Goracle has deemed the debate is "over"!

Long ago, I also mentioned that the radical environmentalists groups were a fringe cult, or religious group. Finally, it's being mentioned.

10 bonus points for using the "Goracle" word. This will inevitably draw more well needed attention to this issue while questioning the credibility of the commission salesmen (Al Gore and his scientists) who have everything to gain. To say its over and "do as you're told" is non other than a pathetic fascist cop out. I see a new mega billion dollar industry with bright red flags all over it. Wherever there's money, theres always crooks nearby doing what every special interest group does on a regular basis: Exagerate a sense of urgency for more funding by using out of context statistics / overviews and biased studies.

Its a con people, don't believe it for 1 second. 90% of it is bullshit. They want to close the door, I say kick the fucker in & fight them to the death.

[Danimal87]

Al Gore should have never gotten into what should have been a purely scientific issue. Having such a polarizing politician become the figurehead of global warming tends to make people line up Left vs. Right, and as we all know, that is when reason shuts down.

When it comes to science, the debate is never over. The global warming crowd's attitude of moral and intellectual superiority gives me pause, and it seems to me like they finally just struck the right cord with the American public when it comes to caring for the environment after many notes that were off. If you are so right, then you should be willing to take your opponents head-on and apply your logic directly to their foreheads.

Refusing to drill or imposing restrictions on our industry isn't going to solve much of anything. Just about every other nation on the planet is full speed ahead with development, and capping our own wouldn't do much to save the planet even if it definitely was imperiled. The end result is one thing- an America becoming eclipsed economically by more serious countries.

[chrisvet]

and it seems to me like they finally just struck the right cord with the American public when it comes to caring for the environment after many notes that were off. If you are so right, then you should be willing to take your opponents head-on and apply your logic directly to their foreheads..

You're absolutely Right, its becoming a fucking religion: Try debating it and you'll get the Exact same door slammed in your face because of lack of evidence. Win the crowd and you have permission to laugh in the face of your opponents who merely seek evidence / truth.

(Disclaimer: yes god will probably burn my ass in hell over this :lol:)

[MelL]

Al Gore should have never gotten into what should have been a purely scientific issue. Having such a polarizing politician become the figurehead of global warming tends to make people line up Left vs. Right, and as we all know, that is when reason shuts down.

When it comes to science, the debate is never over. The global warming crowd's attitude of moral and intellectual superiority gives me pause, and it seems to me like they finally just struck the right cord with the American public when it comes to caring for the environment after many notes that were off. If you are so right, then you should be willing to take your opponents head-on and apply your logic directly to their foreheads.

Refusing to drill or imposing restrictions on our industry isn't going to solve much of anything. Just about every other nation on the planet is full speed ahead with development, and capping our own wouldn't do much to save the planet even if it definitely was imperiled. The end result is one thing- an America becoming eclipsed economically by more serious countries.


Wasn't Al Gore active in environmental matters before he became (in)famous politically with the 2000 election?

[Fungus Amungus]

All politicians are involved in the enviroment one way or another. It doesn't matter how much Gore was in it before ethier saying the debate is over on something that hasn't been proven and is only a theory is just idiocy.

[MelL]

All politicians are involved in the enviroment one way or another. It doesn't matter how much Gore was in it before ethier saying the debate is over on something that hasn't been proven and is only a theory is just idiocy.

Right, but what I'm saying is that I was under the impression he was more involved in the environment, beyond the norm for most politicians, before he became truly famous or infamous.

[Spike Lee]

Yeah, he was one of the early politicians that brought it up.

Anyways. I sit back here and I see the old tired and stupid retorts to the data. Well what about this? Well what about it? Chalupa, me and Bergshadow have all answered those questions and yet the reply we get back is asking us about another set of questions. We answer those and yet another question and we respond. They eventually go back to another argument that they used before and it's a fucking cycle chock full of the same shit.

And it's the same set replies from them to:

The sun is warming!
Climate's changed before!
There is no consensus!
Global cooling back in the 70s!
Global warming is good!
There is no empirical evidence!

All those claims have been answered and if they haven't, it won't be hard to answer them

[bergshadow]

Al Gore should have never gotten into what should have been a purely scientific issue. At this point in the debated it's not a scientific issue, it's almost wholly a political issue. The science is uncertain, and will remain so long past the time of best action. The question is what to do about the threat of various probabilities. It's a question of political judgment in response toa situation in the real world, not scientific fact.

The people who don't want to face the political issues are happy to backtrack into the scientific debate, and take refuge in the ineradicable uncertainty of all scientific endeavor - no one knows for absolutely sure what boosting the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by 50 - 100% (some legitimate predictions run it to 400% !) in a couple of hundred years will do to the climate regime we all depend on for our current civilizations. Since no one knows that, there is no problem, is the implied conclusion.
When it comes to science, the debate is never over. The global warming crowd's attitude of moral and intellectual superiority gives me pause, and it seems to me like they finally just struck the right cord with the American public when it comes to caring for the environment after many notes that were off. If you are so right, then you should be willing to take your opponents head-on and apply your logic directly to their foreheads. In the scientific debate, that's been done, in peer reviewed literature, in public, over the past thirty years. The results are in front of you.

In the political debate, its' a matter of rhetoric and propaganda technique - and if anyone has learned anything about US politics, it's that on TV repetition trumps reason. Never donate your time and money to give your opponent opportunities for repetition on TV, is a good rule of thumb.

The snob attitude of the "global warming crowd" is partly a reaction to being called idiots and alarmists by people who obviously haven't got a handle on the situation, and are being suckered by wealthy manipulators of the public debate.

Why should "the environmentalists" have to strike "just the right note" to get people to show a lick of common sense ?

Refusing to drill or imposing restrictions on our industry isn't going to solve much of anything. Why make things worse, just because you can't solve a problem ? When trapped in a hole, quit digging down. Don't piss in the soup. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. That kind of thing.

[Danimal87]

Why make things worse, just because you can't solve a problem ? When trapped in a hole, quit digging down. Don't piss in the soup. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. That kind of thing.
Our energy policies won't affect the climate very much when we are acting alone. So why put us into a situation where gas prices are skyrocketing? Its not as if we're fixing anything.

[Duke Dicky]

Our energy policies won't affect the climate very much when we are acting alone. So why put us into a situation where gas prices are skyrocketing? Its not as if we're fixing anything.

Create new industries and fuel diversity, create new technologies for cheaper and more efficient fuel, cleaner environment, reduce the funds going into foreign countries to purchase oil and put it back into our own economy, new jobs, and lastly, other countries would follow suit if only to fight for the potential economic gain they'd receive by helping America; just to name a few. To me this debate should be more about scientific progression and the halt there of. Even if manmade climate change isn't occurring (no one can state that for a fact mind you), there are plenty of good reasons why we should pursue alternate/cleaner/cheaper fuel sources.

[cobra_man]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/



Hmm, this site was created by the Western Fuels Association (http://www.westernfuels.org/index.cfm) which is a big coal company.

[Fungus Amungus]

Yeah, he was one of the early politicians that brought it up.

Anyways. I sit back here and I see the old tired and stupid retorts to the data. Well what about this? Well what about it? Chalupa, me and Bergshadow have all answered those questions and yet the reply we get back is asking us about another set of questions. We answer those and yet another question and we respond. They eventually go back to another argument that they used before and it's a fucking cycle chock full of the same shit.

And it's the same set replies from them to:

The sun is warming!
Climate's changed before!
There is no consensus!
Global cooling back in the 70s!
Global warming is good!
There is no empirical evidence!

All those claims have been answered and if they haven't, it won't be hard to answer them

Stupid retorts? Wow for a member that talks about equality on this board you should of typed that differently. This is still in debate, just because people don't agree with you (like me) doesn't mean that they're stupid. The fact you still see these "stupid retorts" pop up means the debate is still in effect. If there was no reason to debate about it there would be no arguement what needs to be done, but this is not the reality we live in.

[chrisvet]

Create new industries and fuel diversity, create new technologies for cheaper and more efficient fuel, cleaner environment, reduce the funds going into foreign countries to purchase oil and put it back into our own economy, new jobs, and lastly, other countries would follow suit if only to fight for the potential economic gain they'd receive by helping America; just to name a few. To me this debate should be more about scientific progression and the halt there of. Even if manmade climate change isn't occurring (no one can state that for a fact mind you), there are plenty of good reasons why we should pursue alternate/cleaner/cheaper fuel sources.


In the long run, scientific progression performs best and most efficiently when done by the free market, which does a much better job when iimbecile corporate taxation rates & excessive regulations are removed (the wonders that forced outsourcing); allowing US companies to perform @ their best.

All we're doing here is further bleeding our companies ability to properly R&D techs by raising necessary taxes to fund the new up and coming pig bureacracy. The concept is self defeating and will add to more outsourcing, lower living standards, and lower quality of life for Americans.

Gov't repeatedly fails on all levels to produce efficiently, vs a free market enterprise that exists only because it previously made 'correct' decisions @ producing the highest quality goods & technologies for the lowest possible price.

Giving grants is also a fail, as it rewards underserving companies with the very tax dollars taken from the best most efficient free market enterprises.
I'm one of the few that hold the opinion Chrysler should have bit the bullet 30 years ago because it would have allowed GM / Ford to fill pockets in the market from their then ability to produce better cars. Over the course of time, Everybody wins when gov't stays the fuck out of the market.

[SmokedYaNerd]

(paraphrased) The 30,000 people arent scientists and some are dead

well smart guy.. did you realize that when Al Gore said "the science is in an 3000 scientists agree global warming is real" let me tell you something
Al Gore is included in the 3000. and so are many other people with no scientific background. Not to mention Quite a few of the actual scientists involved in the 3000 wanted their name off the list.

GW is a scam and is not real.. Global cooling is real and is coming, and not because of humans.. but because of our understanding of how the world has had rises and falls in temperatures as far back as we can go.

Science-- something that hasn't been involved on the Alarmist side.

[Mojoe77]

There might be something to say when even the The American Conservative pans the book and says (http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/review.html) that Goldberg has no idea what he is talking about.

You know, they say it's never good to judge a book by its cover. I don't think it's a good idea to read a review (whether it be a good review or bad review) and dismiss a book. Here's Jonah Goldberg's response (http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDFiNjM0N2FlODRjMTI5ZDQzY2VlODBmODljYzdiZTU=) to Mr. Bramwell of The American Conservative. Here's another response (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGRhYzUyY2QyMDVmMTc1ZDY0Y2ZlNjE1ZThlMzU3M2E=) to Michael Tomasky of The New Republic.

Considering you like to judge a book by its cover, here's a couple of interviews (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/17/video-video-jonah-goldberg-explains-liberal-fascism-on-the-daily-show/) with Jonah (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/17/jonah-goldberg-my-phone-call-with-jon-stewart/). Also, I couldn't find any reviews on those interviews. It looks like you'll have to either watch them or ignore them, sorry.


2007's dramatic cooling is driven by La Nina which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature and should recede in mid-2008.

After doing a little digging, it seems La Nina does cause drops in global temperatures. Considering I can't refute that point, how does one explain this (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/07/more-satellite-musings/#more-306)?

He was an advocate placince racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

I have no idea who "He" is.

Looking at your above post about skeptics' arguments:

The sun is warming! The climate's changed before!

More info on the sun (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/17/climate-change-chaos/#more-259). More info on hottest year 1934 vs. 1998 (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html).

There is no consensus!

What consensus (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_ the_debate_is_not_over.html)?

Global warming is good!

There is still some debate regarding the positive side to a warmer planet.

Edit: Great post Chrisvet.

[sweet]

GW is a scam and is not real.. Global cooling is real and is coming, and not

If gw did happen enough that the ice caps melt then there could possibly another ice age due the the change in the currents.

[Just Spurplin]

Stupid retorts? Wow for a member that talks about equality on this board you should of typed that differently. This is still in debate, just because people don't agree with you (like me) doesn't mean that they're stupid. The fact you still see these "stupid retorts" pop up means the debate is still in effect. If there was no reason to debate about it there would be no arguement what needs to be done, but this is not the reality we live in.

People are still debating as to whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, that doesn't mean there is any logical reason to consider the possibility that the government orchestrated the entire thing.

[Fungus Amungus]

People are still debating as to whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, that doesn't mean there is any logical reason to consider the possibility that the government orchestrated the entire thing.

It pretains to the debate itself. I mean people still debate if the Holocaust was fake or if we went to the moon. The issue with Global warming is you have sceintists on both sides and the diferent sides are not equal, but still have large numbers on ethier side of the coin. When it comes to conspiracy theories and bullshit of that nature it's a radical group, which you will ALWAYS have.

[Just Spurplin]

It pretains to the debate itself. I mean people still debate if the Holocaust was fake or if we went to the moon. The issue with Global warming is you have sceintists on both sides and the diferent sides are not equal, but still have large numbers on ethier side of the coin. When it comes to conspiracy theories and bullshit of that nature it's a radical group, which you will ALWAYS have.

But this issue is like debating God, no matter what you are going to have intelligent people on both sides making decent arguments. Even if everything that scientists say Global Warming will cause does come true, the other scientists can easily refute it by saying "Well that's just the cycle of the earth, there is no way we can change it."

There are two options here. One, we change the way we live which, regardless whether or not Global Warming is real, it is good for the planet. Or two, we do nothing.

Anyone with a brain should be able to see changing the way we live is the better option. It's not like people are saying we need to get rid of automobiles. The changes aren't that terrible. But instead of putting our time, energy and money into these changes, and into finding better ways to make changes, we are spending our time, energy and money trying to convince people that we should make changes.

There will never be an end to the debate on God. There will never be an end to the debate on evolution. There will never be an end to the debate on abortion. There will never be an end to the debate on Global Warming. It's a never ending cycle, and why people like Gore or the scientists backing him should continue this argument is beyond me.

[SmokedYaNerd]

There will never be an end to the debate on Global Warming. 100% incorrect.. I'd be surprized if went on longer than 5 more years...

Everyday we work to make our world better, but the fact of the matter is doing something against global warming is STUPID! CO2 is not a pollutant.

[chrisvet]

But this issue is like debating God, no matter what you are going to have intelligent people on both sides making decent arguments.

Dude!! You can't compare GW debates with religious ones. Its unfair. Even regulars here admit there's no "god" evidence, only stories passed down and faith. In this case we have a bunch of people who stand to profit big time, and a shitload of people who stand to profit nothing. So who do you believe? The salesmen? Of course not, they're full of shit, after your money, and going to sell the best story to win.

There are two options here. One, we change the way we live which, regardless whether or not Global Warming, it is good for the planet. Or two, we do nothing.

The problem is the "Way we live" is hijacked by a new gov't industry full of opportunists riding teh wave of tax sodemy. Out of context stats, scare tactics, biased studies are well known traits of all special interests competing for yearly funding. GW is no different.

Anyone with a brain should be able to see changing the way we live is the better option. It's not like people are saying we need to get rid of automobiles. The changes aren't that terrible. But instead of putting our time, energy and money into these changes, and into finding better ways to make changes, we are spending out time, energy and money trying to convince people that we should make changes.

No problem doing this, just keep the gov't the fuck out. Let private industry pull it off, and as an incentive, knock out a big portion of their corporate taxation for more R&D dollars. After thats done, watch outsourcing take a shit.

There will never be an end to the debate on God.

Don't be so sure.

There will never be an end to the debate on evolution.

Don't be so sure.

It's a never ending cycle, and why people like Gore or the scientists backing him should continue this argument is beyond me.

Gore's a salesman who used out of context scare tactics in his presentation. He has no crediblity amongst educated skeptics, and neither do his team of eggheads.

This issue is far from dead, its a fucking scam, and Al Gore saw this as the golden opportunity to become world savior.

[Just Spurplin]

100% incorrect.. I'd be surprized if went on longer than 5 more years...

Everyday we work to make our world better, but the fact of the matter is doing something against global warming is STUPID! CO2 is not a pollutant.

And what do you see the defining moment in this debate being? What on Earth could happen in the next 5 years that will make everyone believe that Global Warming is real, or that it isn't real. If you believe Global Warming is not real, then why are there so many scientists that say it is real? What could possibly make them change their mind in the next five years? The facts are all out there. Whether you believe or not is just coming down to whether you choose to believe the facts or not, just like it is with evolution.

[chrisvet]

100% incorrect.. I'd be surprized if went on longer than 5 more years...
Not a chance. Its the newest massive gov't industry that stands to profit too many people. It'll advance just below military expendatures.

The NWO crowd also loves GW, viewing it as another reason to unite the world under 1 gov't.

[Spike Lee]

After doing a little digging, it seems La Nina does cause drops in global temperatures. Considering I can't refute that point, how does one explain this (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/07/more-satellite-musings/#more-306)?
La Nina is phenomena that occurs every four years, I believe. Either way, this data is for the lower half of the Earth.




More info on the sun (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/17/climate-change-chaos/#more-259). More info on hottest year 1934 vs. 1998 (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html).

The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm



What consensus (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_ the_debate_is_not_over.html)?


There is still some debate regarding the positive side to a warmer planet.

Edit: Great post Chrisvet.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

[Duke Dicky]

In the long run, scientific progression performs best and most efficiently when done by the free market, which does a much better job when iimbecile corporate taxation rates & excessive regulations are removed (the wonders that forced outsourcing); allowing US companies to perform @ their best.

All we're doing here is further bleeding our companies ability to properly R&D techs by raising necessary taxes to fund the new up and coming pig bureacracy. The concept is self defeating and will add to more outsourcing, lower living standards, and lower quality of life for Americans.

Gov't repeatedly fails on all levels to produce efficiently, vs a free market enterprise that exists only because it previously made 'correct' decisions @ producing the highest quality goods & technologies for the lowest possible price.

Giving grants is also a fail, as it rewards underserving companies with the very tax dollars taken from the best most efficient free market enterprises.
I'm one of the few that hold the opinion Chrysler should have bit the bullet 30 years ago because it would have allowed GM / Ford to fill pockets in the market from their then ability to produce better cars. Over the course of time, Everybody wins when gov't stays the fuck out of the market.


Free market is fine and dandy for 'some' industries, but not all. Typically industries requiring very large infrastructure is best run by our government. Examples include healthcare, roadways, emergency services, military, nuclear reactors, transportation, and gasoline. This is of course assuming the hypothetical outcome you've laid forth that our government would have complete control over these new markets in the first place.

[SmokedYaNerd]

And what do you see the defining moment in this debate being? What on Earth could happen in the next 5 years that will make everyone believe that Global Warming is real, or that it isn't real. If you believe Global Warming is not real, then why are there so many scientists that say it is real? What could possibly make them change their mind in the next five years? The facts are all out there. Whether you believe or not is just coming down to whether you choose to believe the facts or not, just like it is with evolution.

Oh, I'm sorry I must be the only one with common sense? The globe has been cooling the past 20 years, its only a matter of time before people start to realize it and eventually the media will have to switch sides too.. I'd hardly call people who "say the science is in and the debate is over" real scientists.

[chrisvet]

Free market is fine and dandy for 'some' industries, but not all.

FM: The epitamy of goods & services delivered for the lowest possible prices without gov't intervention.


Typically industries requiring very large infrastructure is best run by our government.
False, gov't fails on all levels to handle large infrastructure because there is no competition to keep them in check, and nobody in the bureaucracy has incentive to improve. Result: Layers upon Layers of mismanagement by people who don't give 2 flying fucks other than doing their 'job description' and heading home @ 5:00 PM.

Great example: billions and billions of misplaced pentagon money.
UPS offer 2 decades ago to take over US postal service letter service for charging 1/3 the price to Americans. The list is endless to support this fact. Gov't sucks over and over on all levels. Visit a gov't office vs a private one to see who has mountains of mindless red tape, bitchy staff, and who treats you like royalty for 1/3 the cost while you sit in comfortable chairs and drink free coffee.


Examples include healthcare: False, a long long discussion, including many things most don't know such as capped limits of med school graduates to keep supply down, demand high. I could go on for hours about problems with our fucked up med system, the enormous hidden cost Canadians pay, and the gross inefficiencies. (You'd be shocked.)

Roadways: Municipal done on local levels. / private toll highways proven to deliver triple the quality/perks/cost savings vs gov't toll roads. Tax savings astronamical.

emergency services: Privitization wins hands down. Companies who compete for service jobs crucify all gov't bureaucracy.

military: Yes, to protect only. Remove troops from 130 countries worldwide & never pay income tax again.

nuclear reactors: Still falls under the catagory of who builds best.

Transportation: Public? Municipal issue, no problem.

gasoline: Irrelivant. (unless you can elaborate)

[SmokedYaNerd]

btw my estimation of 5 years is a lot closer than the global warming topic never getting solved... attack that guy, not me because no matter what im closer to the year it will get solved.

[Duke Dicky]

Examples include healthcare: False, a long long discussion, including many things most don't know such as capped limits of med school graduates to keep supply down, demand high. I could go on for hours about problems with our fucked up med system, the enormous hidden cost Canadians pay, and the gross inefficiencies. (You'd be shocked.)

As opposed to a system of 50 million uninsured with others unable to receive aid due to pre-existing conditions? And this is a perfect example of where people with a gang bust mentality over free markets can't explain why, in many cases, privatization does NOT keep prices down. We pay forty percent more per capita for our healthcare than yours.

Roadways: Municipal done on local levels. / private toll highways proven to deliver triple the quality/perks/cost savings vs gov't toll roads. Tax savings astronamical.

And yet it wouldn't make much sense to have two competing and separately developed roadway systems. Hence the reason organization trumps low costs in large infrastructure systems.

emergency services: Privitization wins hands down. Companies who compete for service jobs crucify all gov't bureaucracy.

I personally don't want to contract my emergency services to the lowest bidder, sorry, but I disagree with your judgment on this.

military: Yes, to protect only. Remove troops from 130 countries worldwide & never pay income tax again.

Glad you agree.

nuclear reactors: Still falls under the catagory of who builds best.

You'd want private industries to build nuclear reactors? Public safety seems of the utmost importance hence why it should be government controlled. You’ll have to explain what you mean by ‘best’.