More Globaloney -- Al Gore Skips Agreed to Newspaper Interview With Danish Skeptic

Proving that Al Gore isn't interested in any dispassionate investigation or debate about global Warming, Gore perpetrated a last minute disappearing act and skipped an interview with the biggest Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009552), that was set up months in advance.

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

Gee, Al. If you are so sure of your "facts" what is so outrageous with a little adult debate in front of a newspaper editor? It isn't like you were invited onto the Jerry Springer show or some other lowgrade venue, after all.

But, wait... NOW I can see why Gore didn't want to act like a man sure of himself. It's because he would have faced some hard questions about his ideas.

However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

In response, all Gore has is zealotry and wild-eyed alarmism, so he has nothing logical or well thought out with which to respond to such a question.

Mr Rose has a just a few examples of Gore's misrepresentations and lies in the Wall Street journal piece:
Gore says global warming has increased malaria in Nairobi, but the World Health Organization says the country is considered malaria free, unlike in the 1920's and 30's when it had epidemics regularly.

Gore says that Antarctica is melting and presents picture to "prove" it, but those pictures are from only 2 percent of Antarctica whereas 98 percent of the continent has actually COOLED over the last 35 years.

Gore says seas will rise 20 feet, but the U.N. climate panel only thinks it will be 1 foot. Also seas rose only 1 foot over the last 150 years already with little real trouble world wide.

Gore says the heat of global warming will kill "2,000" people in the U.K., but freezing temperatures will kill 20,000 more without such "warming". Why are the 2,000 killed by warming more important than the 20,000 who would be killed by freezing?


Yes, it's no wonder that Gore doesn't want to address the hilarity of his absurd claims. The editors of Jyllands-Posten should be happy that he skipped the interview he once agreed to. Dying from laughing is much worse than buying it from global warming!

More globaloney from Al Gore. But no real facts, sadly.

Why would Gore devote time to a guy that had been investigated by the Danish authorities for, among other things, fabrication of data, selective citations, deliberate misuse of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, plagiarism and deliberate misinterpretation of others' results? (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg))

Why would Gore devote time to a guy that was said by the investigators at the time to be not culpable because of a "lack of expertise in the fields in question"?

Why should Gore devote time to a guy whose defenders are, by and large, social scientists and not natural scientists?

Why should Gore devote time to a guy about whose book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, the Union Of Concerned Scientists said was "seriously flawed and failing to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis" and further, accused "Lomborg of presenting data in a fraudulent way, using flawed logic and selectively citing non-peer-reviewed literature"?

"No real facts" indeed.

Gore is getting rich off of the global warming scam. Lots of people are. Global warming is big business.

Gore is getting rich off of the global warming scam. Lots of people are. Global warming is big business.

Gore is already "rich."

And I assume that you're including guys like Bjorn "The Skeptical Environmentalist" Lomborg in your list of people getting wealthy on this topic, right?

Why would Gore devote time...

If he is so sure.... why NOT?

Well MV you stick with Limbaugh voodo science and I'll stick with 95% of the world's legitimate scientists! Remember Limbaugh saying that even if the polar ice caps melted it wouldn't raise the sea levels, because when ice melts in a glas it doesn't raise the water level! Only trouble is, most ice is on land!

If he is so sure.... why NOT?

Because there aren't enough hours in a day to confront non-scientist types lacking expertise in the fields in question that fabricate data, selectively cite, deliberately misuse statistics, distort interpretations of conclusions, plagiarise and deliberately misinterpret others' results. Especially those that refuse to listen to real scientists more than qualified to show them the error in their analyses.

For the same reason, few who actually know about evolution care to spend endless hours knocking their heads against brick walls arguing with doltish creationists who know nothing about it.

Why would Gore devote time to a guy that had been investigated by the Danish authorities for, among other things, fabrication of data, selective citations, deliberate misuse of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, plagiarism and deliberate misinterpretation of others' results? (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg))

Why would Gore devote time to a guy that was said by the investigators at the time to be not culpable because of a "lack of expertise in the fields in question"?

Why should Gore devote time to a guy whose defenders are, by and large, social scientists and not natural scientists?

Why should Gore devote time to a guy about whose book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, the Union Of Concerned Scientists said was "seriously flawed and failing to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis" and further, accused "Lomborg of presenting data in a fraudulent way, using flawed logic and selectively citing non-peer-reviewed literature"?

"No real facts" indeed.

Yup, that guy is a fraud, so funny that some people put all their trust in liars, crooks, and frauds, it's like they enjoy being wrong.:nonono:

Yup, that guy is a fraud, so funny that some people put all their trust in liars, crooks, and frauds, it's like they enjoy being wrong.:nonono:

What's telling is that MV holds Mr. Lomborg up as some sort the white knight of the GW/CC Deniers Society, a shining beacon he's gravitated to like a moth to a flame yet Lomborg is not in any way a climate expert and has been shamed by the scientific community for his shoddy work.

MV asserts, using a term no doubt lifted from some right-whinge blog, Gore spews "globalony" yet the data fabricating, selectively citing, deliberate misuser of statistical methods, distorter of interpretation of conclusions, plagiariser and deliberate misinterpreter of others' results Mr. Lomborg is his counter to that??

:rofl:

If he is so sure.... why NOT?

How European of you. Defending such a low class, dishonest, leftist pinko commie.

Gore is already "rich."



Yeah, I know that.... I'm just saying he's getting richer off the gullibility of simpletons ... selling movies and getting paid to talk at schools and stuff like that. That’s all I’m saying.

Then why did Gore agree to see him months ago and only skip out at the last second?

Seems to me he is afraid of something?

I can't believe people still take Lomborg seriously.

I can't believe any EVER took Al Gore seriously.

Then why did Gore agree to see him months ago and only skip out at the last second?

Probably because someone pointed out to Gore Lomborg's highly questionable credibility and advised him that it would not advance the debate to waste time with him.

Now, why are you sticking with Lomborg, given what we know about his credibility?

Because he says what you want to hear? Perhaps because it's counter to what the EvUl Gore is saying? It doesn't matter how uncredible Lomborg is, he gets your approval because he's on "your side"? :|

Yeah, I know that.... I'm just saying he's getting richer off the gullibility of simpletons ... selling movies and getting paid to talk at schools and stuff like that. That’s all I’m saying.

Nope. You're lieing.

I can't believe any EVER took Al Gore seriously.

I can't believe that after all this time, you think I give a monkey's shit about Gore.

I can't believe that after all this time, you think I give a monkey's shit about Gore.

Ha, ha. Well, yer pretty much right there. He IS a has been!

Gore has some ego . After he lost election and walked around looking like bigfoot for months proved he is nuts, now he has nerve to lobby for the enviro .

MV - have you even SEEN An Inconvenient Truth?

I feel sorry for those of you who are living with extremely thick, rose-colored glasses on. :(

Ha, ha. Well, yer pretty much right there. He IS a has been!

I said nothing of the sort.

The simple fact is that anyone who paid attention to my posts here would realise that I do not care about American politicians.

..and I feel sorry for people like you who use "science" as a cover for your anti-Americanism.

Anti-Americanism implies emotional involvement and care.

I lack both.

..and I feel sorry for people like you who use "science" as a cover for your anti-Americanism.

You mean those of us who are actually informed and intelligent?

I love America and want it to be around for my niece and nephew's children to enjoy, don't you? :)

edit to add - your attempt at jab makes no sense, as the topic here is GLOBAL warming, not American warming.

Joe,


I lack both.

I'm sure we can find far more than two things you "lack".

Sec. Sam,
I love America and want it to be around for my niece and nephew's children to enjoy, don't you?

edit to add - your attempt at jab makes no sense, as the topic here is GLOBAL warming, not American warming.

I love America and want it strong, not hobbled the way globaloney believers and zealots want.

And globaloney IS an American issue. It is a weapon to beat America with and that is all it has ever been. Globaloney religionists couldn't care less about the environment. It is merely a tool with which to destroy America.

And globaloney IS an American issue. It is a weapon to beat America with and that is all it has ever been. Globaloney religionists couldn't care less about the environment. It is merely a tool with which to destroy America.

You're funny. And paranoid.

You're funny.

Yes.

And paranoid.

Who TOLD you to say that? What do you REALLY mean!!!???

I'm telling my Mommy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/

You guys still trying to deny GW just keep your head in the sand.

What amazes me, but does not surprise me in the least, is that the Conspiracy freaks on this board all view Global warming to be sham, while going on about 911 having been perpetrated by Cheney, or that all Muslims are evil. It just goes to show that they love to stand on ground totally unsupported by education, facts, logic. The lunacy fringe indeed!

What amazes me, but does not surprise me in the least, is that the Conspiracy freaks on this board all view Global warming to be sham, while going on about 911 having been perpetrated by Cheney, or that all Muslims are evil. It just goes to show that they love to stand on ground totally unsupported by education, facts, logic. The lunacy fringe indeed!

The questions about GW that Gore and his ilk won't (or can't) answer are these:

1. Is the slight warming trend we see now (which we have seen happen repeatedly throughout history) a long-term one, or will it subside in the near future? We don't know for sure.
2. To what extent is the warming trend we see now caused by human activity (given that we've seen them happen many times long before man could have had anything to do with them)? We don't know for sure.
3. If we tried to reverse GW, would we succeed to any appreciable extent? Probably not. I have not seen anyone give any meaningful answer to that question.
4. If we succeeded in reversing GW, would it be a good thing? We don't know for sure because we don't know what the ultimate result of the warming trend will be or how long it will last.

We need to be sure any draconian actions we take will have positive effects, and not act simply because we're seized by alarm. Perhaps our efforts would be better spent finding ways to deal with GW instead of hare-brained schemes that won't work and would leave us ill-prepared to deal with the changes that might happen. Here's an obvious one. New Orleans is already below sea level. If the oceans are going to rise, why would we spend billions to rebuild it right back where it was?

Then why did Gore agree to see him months ago and only skip out at the last second?

Seems to me he is afraid of something?

Can you stop a second and examine your attitude here MV?
Why are you questioning Al Gore on his call and not questioning Lomborg? Lomborg is the one with the extremely shady reputation here. Why are you so biased?

M.

..and I feel sorry for people like you who use "science" as a cover for your anti-Americanism.

And I feel sorry for those who dismiss as anti-Americanism everything their sensitive little ears don't want to hear.

M.

The questions about GW that Gore and his ilk won't (or can't) answer are these:

1. Is the slight warming trend we see now (which we have seen happen repeatedly throughout history)- That's not true, human history has never seen such a steep change in temperature - the changes have been much slower.

Pre human history is another matter, of course, but it wasn't exactly harmless then either.

a long-term one, or will it subside in the near future? We don't know for sure.- "Know" is a difficult word - in one sense you don't know that the car racing towards you won't turn in to spaghetti before impact - but in the practical sense you do know.

That's an extreme example, but we do know well enough to make a decision.

2. To what extent is the warming trend we see now caused by human activity (given that we've seen them happen many times long before man could have had anything to do with them)? We don't know for sure.
- Well, what else then? The sun actually had less activity in the period of greatest warming, there has been no increase in vulcanic activity and the jews have been too involved in the Palestine issue to go about changing the weather :|

3. If we tried to reverse GW, would we succeed to any appreciable extent? Probably not. I have not seen anyone give any meaningful answer to that question.- GW is caused by us emitting greenhouse gases, we reverse it by... emitting less greenhouse gases! It'll take a few years before the trend turns, though.

4. If we succeeded in reversing GW, would it be a good thing? We don't know for sure because we don't know what the ultimate result of the warming trend will be or how long it will last.- Well, we know a few things, some of which are pretty simple, like increased desertification (duh), increased problems with heat-related illnesses (duh, again), tribal people who've spendt centuries or millenniae adapting to a certain climate and nature will be in big trouble (duh, again) and some which are unsure.

Those are the things that'll be results of GW, the result of reversing GW by emitting less greenhouse gases... well, can't you guess that yourself?

And globaloney IS an American issue. It is a weapon to beat America with and that is all it has ever been. Globaloney religionists couldn't care less about the environment. It is merely a tool with which to destroy America.- It's crazy how some people can't seem to realize that everything isn't about them - it's actually a version of one of the classical symptoms of the conspiracy theorist :D

There is no "conspiracy" in the popular usage of the word against America (as in secret and somehow behind the scenes).

America has ALWAYS been the one everyone loved to hate and has been the one all other countries have wanted to destroy and thought was "dangerous". Certainly the desire to destroy the USA got more pronounced after the Spanish American War, but we have always been hated.

So, there is no "conspiracy". It is open, constant, and easily observed.

But, simply put, America IS the most important country in the world and THAT has ALSO been true since we challenged the Brits for our rights.

The rest of the world is no better than third world status in importance.

Why are you questioning Al Gore on his call and not questioning Lomborg?

I don't accept Lomborg as any more 100% right than anyone else. I contend that we know NOTHING about this globaloney. We cannot even say what temp it'll be tomorrow much less 100 years from now. Our computer models are based on political needs, not scientific, our research is geared toward getting ever more money to continue the research as opposed to geared toward results.

There is no "science" in the globaloney debate. ONLY politics.

And it is plain that all the "fixes" for globaloney is geared to destroy what country's economy and power....??

THE USA.

Imagine that.

There is no "conspiracy" in the popular usage of the word against America (as in secret and somehow behind the scenes).

America has ALWAYS been the one everyone loved to hate and has been the one all other countries have wanted to destroy and thought was "dangerous". Certainly the desire to destroy the USA got more pronounced after the Spanish American War, but we have always been hated.- You're right, you are funny :D This might surprise you, but the vast majoity of the people in the world go about their everyday without offering a single thought to the US.

As for global warming being a scam to hurt America... how do you explain the fact that the Kyoto agreement is going on as planned without you? Also, how do you explain the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support that idea? I mean, surely one among the thousands of climatologists would have spoken out, or there would've been a leak from one of the secret "Scientists Against America" meetings, right?

So, there is no "conspiracy". It is open, constant, and easily observed.

But, simply put, America IS the most important country in the world and THAT has ALSO been true since we challenged the Brits for our rights.- While it might be true today, it certainly wasn't then - the brits could have crushed you if they really wanted :p

The rest of the world is no better than third world status in importance.- Okay, this sentence has me worried, I'm getting unsure about what you mean by "important" here. I certainly hope you don't mean that the, about a third of a billion, people in the US are somehow more valuable and deserving of life than the six billion outside.

- That's not true, human history has never seen such a steep change in temperature - the changes have been much slower.

Pre human history is another matter, of course, but it wasn't exactly harmless then either.


Actually, we don't have pre human history measurements of warming and cooling trends that are precise enough to show spikes that last a few decades, then subside.


- "Know" is a difficult word - in one sense you don't know that the car racing towards you won't turn in to spaghetti before impact - but in the practical sense you do know.

That's an extreme example, but we do know well enough to make a decision.


See above.


- Well, what else then? The sun actually had less activity in the period of greatest warming, there has been no increase in vulcanic activity and the jews have been too involved in the Palestine issue to go about changing the weather :|


Didn't you get the memo? George Bush created Katrina and steered it into New Orleans to enrich his buddies in Big Dam. If he can do that, the Jews can certainly cause global warming, and we can't stop them.


- GW is caused by us emitting greenhouse gases, we reverse it by... emitting less greenhouse gases! It'll take a few years before the trend turns, though.


Or would it be smarter and easier to increase vegetation cover, to create more carbon sinks?


- Well, we know a few things, some of which are pretty simple, like increased desertification (duh), increased problems with heat-related illnesses (duh, again), tribal people who've spendt centuries or millenniae adapting to a certain climate and nature will be in big trouble (duh, again) and some which are unsure.

Those are the things that'll be results of GW, the result of reversing GW by emitting less greenhouse gases... well, can't you guess that yourself?

How many times has man taken that approach, only to find that the law of unintended consequences still applies?

Actually, we don't have pre human history measurements of warming and cooling trends that are precise enough to show spikes that last a few decades, then subside.- Okay, well then it's nice that we're not talking about pre-human history.

See above.- Er... okay... why?

Didn't you get the memo? George Bush created Katrina and steered it into New Orleans to enrich his buddies in Big Dam. If he can do that, the Jews can certainly cause global warming, and we can't stop them.- Okaay... meanwhile, in the real world, anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases correlate with the warming while nothing else does (except the decrease in pirates, if you're a flying spaghetti monster fan - but I'm sure someone's looking in to that)

Or would it be smarter and easier to increase vegetation cover, to create more carbon sinks?- One doesn't exclude the other, but massive planting of new trees isn't a good alternative to leaving old ones be. There may be some unintended consequences :|

How many times has man taken that approach, only to find that the law of unintended consequences still applies?- By that logic, your solution to everything is to sit on your bum and do nothing because there may be unintended consequences? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here...

By that logic, your solution to everything is to sit on your bum and do nothing because there may be unintended consequences? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here...

What I'm saying is that if we are to realistically reduce CO2 emissions as much and as fast as Kyoto type proponents are pushing, we would have to force everyone on the planet to accept a lower standard of living. That's never going to happen. Kyoto, in fact, exempts the biggest future CO2 emitters. For example, China's expected INCREASE in coal usage for the next 10 years alone would more than negate the effect of everyone in the US not driving cars. And China is not going to accept any reduction in its growth rate imposed from the outside. That's just one nation. As for unintended consequences, didn't we all a few decades ago get all excited because we shut down the production of aerosols and freon based coolants? Aerosols provide a cooling effect. In essence, we made global warming worse.

Actually, we don't have pre human history measurements of warming and cooling trends that are precise enough to show spikes that last a few decades, then subside.

Well... This would be either a lie, or a show of ignorance on the subject your trying to attack.

We can check the annual temperature and CO2 levels for the past 600,000 years in Antarctic ice core samples. Your statement holds no ground in this debate, whatsoever.



See above.

See above.


Didn't you get the memo? George Bush created Katrina and steered it into New Orleans to enrich his buddies in Big Dam. If he can do that, the Jews can certainly cause global warming, and we can't stop them.

And theres the politics behind global warming... Its sad people let their actual mentality be swayed by it?

Kyoto, in fact, exempts the biggest future CO2 emitters. For example, China's expected INCREASE in coal usage for the next 10 years alone would more than negate the effect of everyone in the US not driving cars.

Incorrect. What, you never compound things? Once somethings more, anything less gets bumped out of the equation?

As for unintended consequences, didn't we all a few decades ago get all excited because we shut down the production of aerosols and freon based coolants? Aerosols provide a cooling effect. In essence, we made global warming worse.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

What I'm saying is that if we are to realistically reduce CO2 emissions as much and as fast as Kyoto type proponents are pushing, we would have to force everyone on the planet to accept a lower standard of living. That's never going to happen.

Actually, getting people to reduce their standard of living a little is not impossible. Of course, with that winning attitude of your's a lot of things BECOME impossible.


As for unintended consequences, didn't we all a few decades ago get all excited because we shut down the production of aerosols and freon based coolants? Aerosols provide a cooling effect. In essence, we made global warming worse.

:rolleyes:
Would you rather the ozone layer hole have spread out across other continents?
New Zealand has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world which is saying a lot if you know how temperate and cloudy it is here.

Out of sight, out of mind, huh? I guess you thought to yourself: this is dumb, why are we getting rid of aerosols...

M.

What I'm saying is that if we are to realistically reduce CO2 emissions as much and as fast as Kyoto type proponents are pushing, we would have to force everyone on the planet to accept a lower standard of living. That's never going to happen. Kyoto, in fact, exempts the biggest future CO2 emitters. For example, China's expected INCREASE in coal usage for the next 10 years alone would more than negate the effect of everyone in the US not driving cars. And China is not going to accept any reduction in its growth rate imposed from the outside. That's just one nation.- Kyoto was established ten years ago or so, back then, China wasn't as booming as it is now - I agree that a new agreement should properly include China.

As for unintended consequences, didn't we all a few decades ago get all excited because we shut down the production of aerosols and freon based coolants? Aerosols provide a cooling effect. In essence, we made global warming worse.- We need the ozone layer, though :p Anyway: aerosols are weird and do different things depending on where and what they are - but there is talk that aerosols are dampening the effect of global warming, and we might notice that when we reduce emissions.

- Kyoto was established ten years ago or so, back then, China wasn't as booming as it is now - I agree that a new agreement should properly include China.

I don't understand why China is still considered a "developing country."

Wiki says:

"A developing country has a relatively low standard of living, an undeveloped industrial base, and a moderate to low Human Development Index (HDI) score. In developing countries, there is low per capita income, widespread poverty, and low capital formation." - link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_countries)

China's economy is booming, many of its cities are modern metropoli, they're attracting foreign investment like crazy, they've got a powerful military and have even put men into space. Sorry...these are not the hallmarks of a "developing nation" in the traditional sense of the word.

I agree that changes made by comparatively small polluters (111e+06 tons in 2000) would have little effect if larger polluters like China (918e+06 tons in 2000) do not reduce their output and are allowed in increase it because they have a dubious "developing nation" status that is really not appropriate.

I don't agree with the attitude, though, that because of this we should do nothing.

I don't agree with the attitude, though, that because of this we should do nothing.

Bingo.
Its just another lame excuse.

M.

don't agree with the attitude, though, that because of this we should do nothing.

Who said that??? This is just your partisan ASSumption.

No, those who think Globaloney is merely a replacement for the failed communism that tried to destroy the USA in years past, that does NOT mean that they would necessarily condone ignoring or even reversing certain environmental policies, ideas of concerns.

What it DOES mean is that people against the globaloney religionists neither feel it is as bad nor requires as draconian "solutions". Additionally the claim that man somehow caused it is absurd. Man cannot cause global warming. He cannot stop it either.

But that does NOT mean that man cannot affect the environment and make it unsafe for people.

to be against the communist inspired zealotry of globaloney does NOT mean one MUST, therefore, be anti-environmental.

It just makes one against the wingnuts that sit in trees and who have replaced religion with a belief in environmentalism.

...to be against the communist inspired zealotry of globaloney...

How does one reason with such drivel? I give up.

M.

As for unintended consequences, didn't we all a few decades ago get all excited because we shut down the production of aerosols and freon based coolants? Aerosols provide a cooling effect. In essence, we made global warming worse.

YES! I WANT MORE SKIN CANCER! ONE BILLION MORE OF PEOPLE ALIVE IN 1990 ISN'T ENOUGH! WHO NEEDS THE OZONE! WE LIKE KILLING PEOPLE FROM NEW ZEALAND!

...

Actually, wait. Malcolm, I think we've hit on something here. You noticed how many rich whitebread right wing Americans dream of moving to New Zealand? Obviously, ozone depletion is a conspiracy intended to wipe out innocent free-born New Zealanders, so that our free country will be depopulated and ready to be their retirement village. And that's why the bastards cut down CFC emissions too; they stopped just in time for them to be able to retire down here without having to have skin cancers cut out weekly.

But I've seen through their plan. I'm ready, ohoho yes, I'll be waiting. I will. I've got my blowpipe, I do.

YES! I WANT MORE SKIN CANCER! ONE BILLION MORE OF PEOPLE ALIVE IN 1990 ISN'T ENOUGH! WHO NEEDS THE OZONE! WE LIKE KILLING PEOPLE FROM NEW ZEALAND!

...

Actually, wait. Malcolm, I think we've hit on something here. You noticed how many rich whitebread right wing Americans dream of moving to New Zealand? Obviously, ozone depletion is a conspiracy intended to wipe out innocent free-born New Zealanders, so that our free country will be depopulated and ready to be their retirement village. And that's why the bastards cut down CFC emissions too; they stopped just in time for them to be able to retire down here without having to have skin cancers cut out weekly.

But I've seen through their plan. I'm ready, ohoho yes, I'll be waiting. I will. I've got my blowpipe, I do.


:)
Truly cunning. Devastating in its wiley devilishness!
I await them with my club.

M.

*starts up a business selling blowpipes and clubs to New Zealanders*

:D

hugs

lilnymph

Gore has shown himself to be a coward and this act of cowardice does nothing to bolster his position and claims.


What I find interesting is that Lomborg is a man from the left. He agrees with most of the leftists here more than he does with anyone on the right.
Yet, because he's taken a position that questions one of the lefts dogma, he is attacked and discredited.

So attack and discredit him all you want lefties, he's one of your own.



Why would Gore devote time to a guy that had been investigated by the Danish authorities for, among other things, fabrication of data, selective citations, deliberate misuse of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, plagiarism and deliberate misinterpretation of others' results? (link)

Why would Gore devote time to a guy that was said by the investigators at the time to be not culpable because of a "lack of expertise in the fields in question"?

Why should Gore devote time to a guy whose defenders are, by and large, social scientists and not natural scientists?

Why should Gore devote time to a guy about whose book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, the Union Of Concerned Scientists said was "seriously flawed and failing to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis" and further, accused "Lomborg of presenting data in a fraudulent way, using flawed logic and selectively citing non-peer-reviewed literature"?


Because if Lomborg is a liar, then it would be easy to publicly cream him and settle the matter.

Additionally, given Al's false claims it seems that these guys are both adept at making false claims, therefore they are a perfect match.




Then why did Gore agree to see him months ago and only skip out at the last second?

Seems to me he is afraid of something?

Of course he is. The vast majority of leftists don't like dissent or having their claims challenged. They're totalitarians at heart.

Bjorn Lomborg has no credibility in ecological circles. His garbage has been debunked more often than I've had tofu stir-fries.

Basically, I'd refuse to debate that monkey too, not because I'm scared of him, but because I wouldn't want his lack of credibility to rub off on me.

Yet, because he's taken a position that questions one of the lefts dogma, he is attacked and discredited.

Lomborg is "attacked" because he uses highly suspect methods and his "science" is junk.

Would that the right could bring themselves to question the methods of some of their own...

Because if Lomborg is a liar, then it would be easy to publicly cream him and settle the matter.

Already been done. Why anyone would spend more time debunking the data fabricating, selectively citing, deliberate misuser of statistical methods, distorter of interpretation of conclusions, plagiariser and deliberate misinterpreter of others' results? Why would anyone spend more time "debunking" what the Union of a Concerned Scientists has already called "seriously flawed and fail[ing] to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis"?

And Gore, the coward, has been shown to be lying and misleading.....He's in the same boat as Lomborg. They deserve each other and it would pit liar vs liar.
What makes it OK for Gore to lie and mislead but not Lomborg?
This is called hypocrisy.

Keep attacking your fellow leftist though. It's enlightening. Once someone ceases to be a useful idiot for the left they get treated as Lomborg does.

By the way, Lomborg isn't the only enviornmentalist or scientist to question Gore, the coward, and the whole man caused GW thing.
It seems that according to the GW hysterics anyone who questions the GW hysterics are either on some payroll or are bad just people.

Why is it impossible for the GW hysterics to accept, and respect, the fact that others don't agree with them yet but are open to more evidence?

People who are skeptics want a smoking gun. Is all this bitterness, rage, and anger displayed by the GW hysterics about this issue simply because they don't have a smoking gun and are lashing out over frustration?

Prove it to me and I'll happily side with you. Unlike the GW hysterics, I'm not loyal to a position, I'm loyal to what the facts and evidence prove.


And would someone here please answer if China should remain exempt from Kyoto?

And Gore, the coward, has been shown to be lying and misleading.....He's in the same boat as Lomborg. They deserve each other and it would pit liar vs liar.
What makes it OK for Gore to lie and mislead but not Lomborg?
This is called hypocrisy.

I'm curious then why one of your right wing buddies, Mobile Vulgus, felt the need to use Lomborg to attack Gore in the first place?

As I stated back in post 9 of this thread:

"MV asserts, using a term no doubt lifted from some right-whinge blog, Gore spews "globalony" yet the data fabricating, selectively citing, deliberate misuser of statistical methods, distorter of interpretation of conclusions, plagiariser and deliberate misinterpreter of others' results Mr. Lomborg is his counter to that??"

Finally, in post 35, MV admits that this whole thread is pointless:

"I don't accept Lomborg as any more 100% right than anyone else. ..."

Yet he sought to have Lomborg debate Gore despite not checking his facts early on because Lomborg said what he wanted to hear.

Keep attacking your fellow leftist though. It's enlightening. Once someone ceases to be a useful idiot for the left they get treated as Lomborg does.

Once again: Lomborg is being "treated" as he is because of his highly suspect science, data manipulation and so on.

I said earlier that it'd be nice if the right would venture to check into the "facts" their guys spew too. Clearly, you're not interested in facts. For you, it's all about left and right. Typical.

By the way, Lomborg isn't the only enviornmentalist or scientist to question Gore, the coward, and the whole man caused GW thing.

Lomborg's methods automatically disqualify him for consideration. Within climatology circles there are many approaches, theories and angles. Virtually none are as public as Gore's "summation." I will guarantee you that within those circles, peer review of climate work will subject scientists with a Lomborg-like bent to Lomborg-like treatment. You may not see it but it happens. After the dust has settled, again and again, the general consensus to emerge from the climatology community, based on vetted data and peer-reviewed publications is that the earth is warming, the GHG concentrations are up coincident with industrialization and that man has contributed to at least part of the warming trend.

It seems that according to the GW hysterics anyone who questions the GW hysterics are either on some payroll or are bad just people.

Sometimes it's obvious some people are, say, simply oil-industry shills. You righties really should try to weed those guys out because they make you look bad: gee, an oil-industry sponsored "paper" debunks GW. go figure...

Sometimes they are Lomborg-like, perverting data for whatever reasons.

Sometimes they are otherwise honest but use faulty data. The vetting and peer-review process deals with most of these before you ever see them. The ones that bypass the scientific process are the ones that usually have something to hide.

Why is it impossible for the GW hysterics to accept, and respect, the fact that others don't agree with them yet but are open to more evidence?

I'm fully respecting of differing opinions as long as they're backed by some sort of reasonable rationale. I simply have yet to see any such compelling rationale that adequately explains away the wealth of data built by climatologists.

Unlike the GW hysterics, I'm not loyal to a position, I'm loyal to what the facts and evidence prove.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And would someone here please answer if China should remain exempt from Kyoto?

See post #44 for my opinion, FWIW.

And Gore, the coward, has been shown to be lying and misleading.....He's in the same boat as Lomborg. They deserve each other and it would pit liar vs liar.
What makes it OK for Gore to lie and mislead but not Lomborg?
This is called hypocrisy.

Keep attacking your fellow leftist though. It's enlightening. Once someone ceases to be a useful idiot for the left they get treated as Lomborg does.

By the way, Lomborg isn't the only enviornmentalist or scientist to question Gore, the coward, and the whole man caused GW thing.
It seems that according to the GW hysterics anyone who questions the GW hysterics are either on some payroll or are bad just people.

Why is it impossible for the GW hysterics to accept, and respect, the fact that others don't agree with them yet but are open to more evidence?

People who are skeptics want a smoking gun. Is all this bitterness, rage, and anger displayed by the GW hysterics about this issue simply because they don't have a smoking gun and are lashing out over frustration?

Prove it to me and I'll happily side with you. Unlike the GW hysterics, I'm not loyal to a position, I'm loyal to what the facts and evidence prove.


And would someone here please answer if China should remain exempt from Kyoto?

Hey Toejam, let me just edit your post for you. I'll trim out all the inbetween bullshit for you:

And Gore, the coward, lying and misleading..... liar vs liar. mislead hypocrisy.

idiot

the coward
hysterics[QUOTE]

I thought this part was pretty amusing though:

[QUOTE]Is all this bitterness, rage, and anger displayed by the GW hysterics about this issue simply because they don't have a smoking gun and are lashing out over frustration?

Bitterness, rage, anger? Look at your own posts.

I'm curious then why one of your right wing buddies, Mobile Vulgus, felt the need to use Lomborg to attack Gore in the first place?


Can't answer for him. Again, you've got one liar vs another. What's the problem?
Why does Gore get a pass from you guys but Lomborg doesn't?


Once again: Lomborg is being "treated" as he is because of his highly suspect science, data manipulation and so on.

So why does Gore get a pass despite his lies, misrepresentations, and fear-mongering?

I said earlier that it'd be nice if the right would venture to check into the "facts" their guys spew too.

Lomborg is a man of the left. He isn't one of our guys. Sorry. He's one of your guys. Try to remember that would you?

Clearly, you're not interested in facts. For you, it's all about left and right. Typical.

I'll repeat it again since you've seemed to forget. I'm open to the data and am fully willing to change my opinion on mans effect.
I keep asking for it from the GW hysterics and nobody responds with it.
Why?
If it's so clear cut, why the avoidence?
What are you all afraid of?


Lomborg's methods automatically disqualify him for consideration....
Yes, yes, you've already stated this.
I repeat;
So why does Gore get a pass from you?

Sometimes it's obvious some people are, say, simply oil-industry shills. You righties really should try to weed those guys out because they make you look bad: gee, an oil-industry sponsored "paper" debunks GW. go figure...


Personally, I don't care where they are getting their money as both sides of this debate are getting their money from some interest groups. The important issue is whether they are correct or not in their assertions. Isn't that really more important?


I'm fully respecting of differing opinions as long as they're backed by some sort of reasonable rationale.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: It's not showing.

I simply have yet to see any such compelling rationale that adequately explains away the wealth of data built by climatologists.



Again, show me this smoking gun..........

Why won't you guys show the smoking gun?





Bitterness, rage, anger? Look at your own posts.

None. I'm being factual here. Gore is a liar, we know this to be true. Gore is a coward, we know this to be true.
Most of the GW crowd are hysterical over the issue. Look at the pathetic fearmongering put forth by Gore and his sycophants. For all the criticism the right gets for fearmongering, it appears the left is just as guilty.



So where is this smoking gun????????
Still waiting........

None. I'm being factual here. Gore is a liar, we know this to be true.

Lets hear a few examples, and the severity of them relating to GW.

Gore is a coward, we know this to be true.

A lot of people are cowards. Did Gore himself tell you he was a coward, or is that your interpretation because he doesnt like killing people?


Look at the pathetic fearmongering put forth by Gore and his sycophants. For all the criticism the right gets for fearmongering, it appears the left is just as guilty.

Right......

Lets hear a few examples, and the severity of them relating to GW.

Uh, I think a few are in the first post.



A lot of people are cowards. Did Gore himself tell you he was a coward, or is that your interpretation because he doesnt like killing people?

It's my interpretation because he won't debate anyone on this matter, let alone Lomborg. One would think, with the facts on their side, they'd be willing to debate the matter, especially given the ramifications and consequences. The fact that Gore keeps dodging, speaks volumes.
The fact that the GW Hysterics keep providing excuses for Gore, speaks volumes.



Right......

Gore is using fear to peddle an unproven theory. Do you dispute this?




By the way, anytime you'd like to post the "smoking gun" validating Gore's and the GW hysterics claims, feel free to do so as I'm still waiting.....

None. I'm being factual here. Gore is a liar, we know this to be true. Gore is a coward, we know this to be true.
Most of the GW crowd are hysterical over the issue. Look at the pathetic fearmongering put forth by Gore and his sycophants. For all the criticism the right gets for fearmongering, it appears the left is just as guilty.


I think Swiftsloth is right. All the emotional language, and strong words are coming from you. Swift laid them out side by side, I won't repeat the exercise.
Strange that you claim there is hysteria from the opposing view when you are using the strongest language of us all.

M.

Drop the smoking gun thing TJ, damn!!!!

:horse:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6277331.stm

Must be a cOnSpIRaCy..

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/12/10/europe_anxiously_awaits_winters_arrival/


Hmmmm?

Now that Malcom has admitted what the rest of you GW Hysterics won't (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1465780&postcount=101), my work is largely done for now. :nice:

In the meantime, if any of you guys find that smoking gun, please feel free to post it here so I can read it and consider it.

Thanks

ToeJam, you cant even Prove the world is round, or that neutrons and protons exist. But, if the only way you're going to believe science is if the scenario is one that a 1st grader could grasp, then global warming is not something you want to debate.

ToeJam, you cant even Prove the world is round,

Sure you can. Travel due west and eventually you will end up where you started.

or that neutrons and protons exist.

Sure you can. Look under an electron microscope.

But, if the only way you're going to believe science is if the scenario is one that a 1st grader could grasp, then global warming is not something you want to debate.

I'll believe the science when the smoking gun is presented to me.

Anytime you feel like presenting it fee free to do so, or do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that at this time no smoking gun exists?

Sure you can. Travel due west and eventually you will end up where you started.

Prove it.



Sure you can. Look under an electron microscope.

Prove it.

Now that Malcom has admitted what the rest of you GW Hysterics won't (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1465780&postcount=101), my work is largely done for now. :nice:

In the meantime, if any of you guys find that smoking gun, please feel free to post it here so I can read it and consider it.

Thanks

From the thread you have linkied to:


Its amazing that ToeJam feels he can liken those who want to act upon our green house gas emissions to religious fanatics.
People make decisions based on the science of climatology every day when they decide how to dress or whether or not to bring an umbrella with them when they leave the house.
Yes, those decisions are made on imperfect forecasts... but the reasoning is that they are reliable enough to warrant action.

Noone with more than two brain cells expects incontrovertible proof of what the weather forecast claims: anyone with a modicum of wit knows that such proof is impossible to obtain. No, for reasonable people, a forecast that says there is a high risk of rain is enough for them to decide to bring a raincoat or an umbrella with them.

Why, suddenly, when it comes to GW, do people like TJ speak of religious fanatics, and demand incontrovertible proof?

They claim taking action against our green house gas emissions will damage the economy, but they offer no proof of this - not even a rationale for it. They have nothing to say when examples are offered of how green changes have been made in the past without damaging the economy.
They have nothing to say when people give examples of other nations who have implemented plans which we could imitate, and which would help solve the problem.
In fact, they have very little else to say than that they demand that the science of climatology do what they expect of no other science: present 100 percent proof of a systemic link.

Do we demand of oncology that it present 100 percent proof that smoking causes cancer? No, the scientists run studies, the results of which show that there is a high correlation between smoking and devolping various cancers. And this is enough for everyone.
The studies relating to global warming are precisely the same in nature: they are studies in the correlation between green house gas emissions and global temperatures. They have the added certainty that is conveyed by KNOWING how the gases cause temperatures to rise. Oncology does not know precisely how or why the irritation due to long term cigarette smoking causes cancer.
And yet the GW-deniers have different standards when it comes to GW studies. Nothing will ever be enough for them.

Not only are their double standards eminently unreasonable: some of them, like Toejam here, adopt the most arrogant ways of expressing their so-called doubts.

The bottom line, though, is that they fail to address the points offered to them. They fail to explain why they believe the challenge of adapting our industries to GW will damage us rather than benefit us.
It is challenge that leads to innovation and technological progress. Innovation and technological progress are are key factors in economical success.
Do people like TJ secretely believe that the US is not up to the challenge of such innovation? No, these people tend to be conservative and ultra-patriotic...

So where do their attitudes stem from?
I believe it is most often from a knee-jerk belief that ecological concerns are raised by people who want to harm the United States. It is paranoia and our old divisive enemy, partisan politics, that cause people like Toejam to come here and call their fellow DA'ers religious nut jobs.

That's my take.

M.


If your job here was to show everyone how irrational you are when it comes to GW, then yes, I'd say your job here is done.
Likewise, if your job was to show you are obsessed with the phrase 'smoking gun', your job here has most certainly been carried out with exemplary diligence.

Otherwise I think you have a lot of work ahead of you.

From the thread you have linkied to:



If your job here was to show everyone how irrational you are when it comes to GW, then yes, I'd say your job here is done.
Likewise, if your job was to show you are obsessed with the phrase 'smoking gun', your job here has most certainly been carried out with exemplary diligence.

Otherwise I think you have a lot of work ahead of you.


You are out of arguments regarding the topic of the thread. All you can resort to is this personal crap.
You lose.

You are out of arguments regarding the topic of the thread. All you can resort to is this personal crap.
You lose.

Is discussion of weather forecasts 'personal crap'? Unless your wife ran away with a weather man, I can't imagine how you would mistake those points as personal.

Do you have cancer? I'm trying to understand why discussion of oncology would be considered 'personal crap' by you?

Do umbrellas personally offend you?
Raincoats maybe?

Discussion of the effects of challenge on innovation must be the thing: did you spend a week writing an essay on the topic in school, only to get a D? Is that why such talk is personal?

Help us out here: I don't think anyone here sees why these points, made directly in relation to the subject of the thread, are 'personal crap'.

:rofl:

Welcome to ignore, troll boy. :)

Welcome to ignore, troll boy. :)

Jeez, talk about a thin-skinned debator. Run away...put your head in the sand.

Jeez, talk about a thin-skinned debator. Run away...put your head in the sand.


Not at all Optimus. I welcome a good debate and passion is a good thing. Unfortunately Malcolm has devolved the debate into personal attacks and nothing about the topic, obviously out of ignorance, fear, frustration, and anger, so I'm done lowering myself to his level. :nice:

Not at all Optimus. I welcome a good debate and passion is a good thing. Unfortunately Malcolm has devolved the debate into personal attacks and nothing about the topic, obviously out of ignorance, fear, frustration, and anger, so I'm done lowering myself to his level. :nice:

Right. I haven't seen any personal attacks from him, but I have seen you call him names in the other thread and then say you won't "lower yourself to his level" then tell him your putting him on ignore.

Nice, transparent tactic there.

Take him off of ignore and debate like a man.

Right. I haven't seen any personal attacks from him, but I have seen you call him names in the other thread and then say you won't "lower yourself to his level" then tell him your putting him on ignore.

Nice, transparent tactic there.

Take him off of ignore and debate like a man.


Oh. Now that I see you are his cheerleader....:rolleyes:

There is nothing to debate him about. Read his last several posts on the matter. He's not talking about Global Warming, he's talking about me. And I'm sorry if you can't see any personal attacks from him, you're being dishonest. That's why he's now obsessed talking about me rather than Global Warming.
When he grows up, like a man, and begins to talk about the topics, rather than me, I'll take him off ignore. Same for you.
Do you want to talk about me or Global Warming Optimus?
Be a man and talk about Global Warming.:nice:
Anytime you'd like to present the smoking gun like a man, I'll be pleased to read it like a man, and then comment on it, like a man.:nice:

Oh. Now that I see you are his cheerleader....:rolleyes:

There is nothing to debate him about. Read his last several posts on the matter. He's not talking about Global Warming, he's talking about me. And I'm sorry if you can't see any personal attacks from him, you're being dishonest. That's why he's now obsessed talking about me rather than Global Warming.
When he grows up, like a man, and begins to talk about the topics, rather than me, I'll take him off ignore. Same for you.
Do you want to talk about me or Global Warming Optimus?
Be a man and talk about Global Warming.:nice:
Anytime you'd like to present the smoking gun like a man, I'll be pleased to read it like a man, and then comment on it, like a man.:nice:

Optimus, if you have any time to spare with this fellow, it would be quite fun for you to simply cut and paste what I said to him about people's attitudes towards weather forecasts, and how we trust the prediction that smoking heightens risks of cancer... :)

M.

Oh. Now that I see you are his cheerleader....:rolleyes:

There is nothing to debate him about. Read his last several posts on the matter. He's not talking about Global Warming, he's talking about me. And I'm sorry if you can't see any personal attacks from him, you're being dishonest. That's why he's now obsessed talking about me rather than Global Warming.
When he grows up, like a man, and begins to talk about the topics, rather than me, I'll take him off ignore. Same for you.
Do you want to talk about me or Global Warming Optimus?
Be a man and talk about Global Warming.:nice:
Anytime you'd like to present the smoking gun like a man, I'll be pleased to read it like a man, and then comment on it, like a man.:nice:

Run away, powerboss. Go back to gabshack where you can keep your head in the sand.

Run away, powerboss.

He posted some great stuff here. But, I must again point out that he is not the topic of the thread.

Go back to gabshack where you can keep your head in the sand.

Where is gabshack? What does it have to do with Gore or Global Warming?


I guess this confirms you don't want to "be a man" and debate the issue of man caused Global Warming either.

You see Optimus, a man would want to debate the topic at hand, which is Gore and Global Warming. You don't want to do that though, do you?
Instead you want to continue to be a troll and act like the other children, Malcolm et al, and engage in pathetic personal games and bait people, which I embarrassingly admit I fell for and engaged in for a short period of time.

At least I am going to "be a man" again and get back on topic to debate the topic, unlike you or the other children, it seems.

I'll give it one more try for you to step up and "be a man" as you put it.
So what does Optimus say about Man Caused Global warming? Do you have this famous "smoking gun" that the GW Hysterics claim to have?

You waste your time with optimus. He is incapable of debate. I rarely bother with him. He, Corp Avenger and Truth teller are solely mind numbed leftists without even the tiniest ability to think on their own without first reading the leftist talking points from the latest fax from the DNC.

Malcolm is OK to debate with, though. But like all fetid Europeans, he thinks he is better than everyone else.

Run away, powerboss. Go back to gabshack where you can keep your head in the sand.

Oh, so that's why he's so frustrating...... ;)

Of course, someone who "studied the science" has some facts to debate about man caused Global warming, doesn't she?
Guess not.

These GW threads have been revealing. When confronted with the basic challenge of proving their contentions on one of the issues they are most empassioned by and certain about, they bail.

Malcolm is OK to debate with, though. But like all fetid Europeans, he thinks he is better than everyone else.

Who, between you and me, makes claims that the US is the best country in the world, and that nobody else's opinion matters?

It would seem you are projecting your own superiority complex on me.

M.

over 80 posts and the GW deniers have not made ONE valid point, or posted a SINGLE bit of objective evidence

[applauds]

over 80 posts and the GW deniers have not made ONE valid point, or posted a SINGLE bit of objective evidence

[applauds]

Uh, It's your contention that man is causing GW. Shouldn't you be the ones posting objective evidence? After all, you do contend certainty about man causing GW, don't you? The burden lies upon you to prove your theory/assertions, not for me to disprove your theory/assertions that haven't even been presented.

Repeated requests for proof have been requested and not a single bit of objective evidence has been presented.

He posted some great stuff here. But, I must again point out that he is not the topic of the thread.

:rolleyes:

Where is gabshack? What does it have to do with Gore or Global Warming?

:rolleyes:

I guess this confirms you don't want to "be a man" and debate the issue of man caused Global Warming either.

I am not interested in debating the topic with you at this time.


You see Optimus, a man would want to debate the topic at hand, which is Gore and Global Warming. You don't want to do that though, do you?
Instead you want to continue to be a troll and act like the other children, Malcolm et al, and engage in pathetic personal games and bait people, which I embarrassingly admit I fell for and engaged in for a short period of time.

You're in no position to lecture anyone on what a man would do. You're the one who is claiming that Malcom made personal attacks to you, while you're calling him "boy" and insulting him in other threads, then claiming that you wouldn't lower yourself to "his" level of debate, then run away from him by putting him on ignore. That's not exactly what a man would do. In fact, it's what a coward would do.

Malcom has made no personal attacks in this thread towards you. I've read his posts several times now, and I still don't see any. Saying you express your views in an arrogant manner isn't a personal attack, no matter how much it hurts your feelings. Making an observation about your approach to a debate is perfectly acceptable. No mod has warned any of his posts in this entire thread. Take a hint. Show some integrity. When your opponent whips your ass in debate, accept defeat gracefully.

I am not interested in debating the topic with you at this time.




Obviously.

Then what, exactly are you doing in this thread Optimus?

I was reading your debate with M, but you punked out. Typical.

I was reading your debate with M, but you punked out. Typical.

No, you keep responding about things that have nothing to do with the topic.

That's called "Off Topic", don't you know.

Since you've "punked out" on debating me over the topic of the post I now welcome you to my ignore list. :nice:

Warning issued: personal attack

No, you keep responding about things that have nothing to do with the topic.



That's called "Off Topic", don't you know.



Since you've "punked out" on debating me over the topic of the post I now welcome you to my ignore list.
Good lord, you're sensitive. Didn't mean to hurt your vagina.

Good lord, you're sensitive. Didn't mean to hurt your vagina.

Got it.

Wow. That was fast Optimus. I'm pleased you responded and I had the chance to read this before I had the chance to "ignore" you.


Oh, btw, that was reported. :nice:

from the locked thread ..

What happens to those who dare challenge the GW Hysterics?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Richard S. Lindzen is an OPEC / Exxon funded tool


http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=173474&Disp=6&Trace=on

a post from a message board ?!?! MUAHAHAHAHA

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/12/nuremberg-style-trials-for-global-warming-skeptics/

keyword search of grist's website turned up no such article


This, as well as in the case with conservative radio and the "Fairness Doctrine", the left doesn't want to foster free speech, much less discuss or debate the issue. Instead they want to intimidate and attempt to silence their opponents by any means possible.
Real freedom lovers, these leftists....:rolleyes:

The USS Irony just keeps on a chuggin'

Scientists allege White House pressure (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsone&storyID=2007-01-30T210856Z_01_N30346494_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-WARMING.xml&WTmodLoc=SportsNewsHome_R1_newsone-1)

Bush ‘distorted’ climate change reports (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/57ddbaea-b0c4-11db-8a62-0000779e2340.html)

Uh, It's your contention that man is causing GW. Shouldn't you be the ones posting objective evidence? After all, you do contend certainty about man causing GW, don't you? The burden lies upon you to prove your theory/assertions, not for me to disprove your theory/assertions that haven't even been presented.

Repeated requests for proof have been requested and not a single bit of objective evidence has been presented.

The burden of proof is equivalent for both sides ... why shouldn't be?

knock yerself out sport

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

your turn

Richard S. Lindzen is an OPEC / Exxon funded tool

Who cares? Debate his arguments.


a post from a message board ?!?! MUAHAHAHAHA

Oh, allow me.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Weather+Channel+Climate+Expert+Calls+for+ Decertifying+Global+Warming+Skeptics+January+17%2C +2007+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8



K?


keyword search of grist's website turned up no such article

Oh, allow me.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_08-2006_10_14.shtml#1160837474

http://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9CWhen+we%E2%80%99ve+finally+gotte n+serious+about+global+warming%2C+when+the+impacts +are+really+hitting+us+and+we%E2%80%99re+in+a+full +worldwide+scramble+to+minimize+the+damage%2C+we+s hould+have+war+crimes+trials+for+these+bastards+%E 2%80%94+some+sort+of+climate+Nuremberg.%E2%80%9D+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8


You didn't try very hard.

The burden of proof is equivalent for both sides ... why shouldn't be?

You are contending that man is causing Global Warming, right?

The burden therefore falls upon you to first prove it.



knock yerself out sport

I will pal.


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Well that was persuasive. :rolleyes:

4 times in a row I got

Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm.

Reason: DNS lookup failure for: www.grida.no


your turn

Um, I don't believe so. Your link wasn't very convincing.

that link works fine .. get a real isp ... yours must suck

Who cares? Debate his arguments.

your right .. why should I care about his opinion ?

Your link worked for me...

M.

a fine point-by-point rebuttal to the Lindzen OP

In the opening paragraph, Lindzen states that others have claimed that there are connections between recent rare weather events and global warming, and asks where they would possibly get such an idea. It's not clear where his astonishment comes from though. Heat waves and increased lake effect snows seem like very reasonable expectations for a warmer world. Of course, attribution of any individual such event to presently observed global temperature change can only be fractional, but it's completely reasonable to say that events like the heat wave of 2003 will be more likely when the mean annual temperature of Europe is a few degrees warmer- this assumes only that the scatter of summer time temperature under global warming won't be much smaller than it is now.

In his second paragraph, Lindzen makes the uncontroversial claim that society sometimes funds science to address phenomena that seem to offer a threat of harm. Using the passive voice, he asserts a feedback cycle between scientific funding and scientific alarm. This seems really odd: the publlc demand made by scientists who are most alarmed by global warming is precisely not that more money go into reasearch, but rather that money go into research to increase fuel efficiency to develope carbon-emission-free fuel sources. In fact Lindzen himself in his final paragraph seems to be calling for increased funding to address the question of climate sensitivity!

The third paragraph about drying up of funding for dissenting science has been addressed by others. I agree that I just don't see it. The particular anecdotes I have heard about political influence on the federal grant making process go in the other direction, where people are told that they should pubish findings supporting large climate sensitvity, at least until after some election.

The fourth paragraph is another weird one. He starts by promissing an opportunity to grasp the "complex underlying scientific issues", but never really discusses anything complex- I take this as an effort to flatter the WSJ readers on their grasp of these erudite points, bolstering their confidence when they take on the tree-huggers at the water cooler. His rhetorical tactic here is to severely shrink the list of agreed-upon truths to those that we've known since 1980, while neglecting the fact that human responsibility for the 20th century warming of global temperature is quite well-established, and that various causes for alarm (for example, substantially reduced water availability in places that depend on snow-pack for their dry-season water) are also very well established. Then he moves the discussion to "outlandish" claims that contradict the "models". This is the first use of the word "models" in the article, and gets no explanation, which is a little odd for a discussion in a newspaper. He doesn't explain what the outlandish claims are, so we're left to wait for the next paragraph.

Here we discover that the outlandish claims involve something about more "excitation" of extratropical storms. I'm not sure where he's getting this- when I go to, for instance, Ross Gelbspan's website, the only references to storms I see is to tropical storms, and to more intense rainfall generally. Both are well supported by empirical studies. The increase in rainfall intensity (shift in distribution of rain from more light events to fewer heavy events) as a consequence of global warming is a robust feature of GCMs.

Okay, that's all I've got time for. It'd be nice if Lindzen gave his reader some way of checking the claims he makes about persecution- was Tennekes dismissed because he questioned the scientific underpinnings of global warming, or just after? In what context did Bert Bolin "tar" Aksel Winn-Nielsen? I think Alfonso Sutera's recent work on baroclinic neutralization is really interesting... is there some missing strand of his research that Lindzen thinks ought to be taken up again? It's hard to guess.

About the IRIS paper- I really can't see what he's complaining about. The paper was published, depite some rather "outlandish claims." For instance, in the IRIS paper, Lindzen argues that tropical surface temperature and polar surface temperature should be assumed to vary in exactly the same way as CO2 concentrations increase. This is based on the idea that baroclinic neutralization maintains a particular critical temperature gradient, an idea that had a brief period of fashionability in 1978. In any case, there's certainly been a lively debate about the paper, and if it's widely viewed as "discredited", then that's the judgement of the climate dynamics community. If we're a bunch of dummies, history will judge us harshly, but we can only do our best.

I see a lot of science in our community that's being driven by curiosity. At the recent European Geophysical Union conference, there were posters on banner clouds on the Zugspitze, the role of cubic ice crystals in high cirrus formation, and the role of global cooling in the fall of the Neanderthals. Some of this research is being driven by claims that it will address climate change. So maybe this helps to solve the riddle of what Lindzen is really concerned about. People who are really concerned about climate change don't agitate for more funding for our field- they agitate for funding for fuel efficiency research and carbon sequestration. It's the people who like curiosity-driven research in climate dynamics who have the real incentive to argue that there's a lot of uncertainty, because uncertainty allows people with strong intellectual curiosity to make the case that there's at least some tangential benefit of their work to the climate sensitivity problem.




http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd/

since your web-tv probably will not work with that link either toejam , that was Daniel Kirk-Davidoff , Assistant Professor , Dept. of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science , University of Maryland

You waste your time with optimus. He is incapable of debate. I rarely bother with him. He, Corp Avenger and Truth teller are solely mind numbed leftists without even the tiniest ability to think on their own without first reading the leftist talking points from the latest fax from the DNC.

Malcolm is OK to debate with, though. But like all fetid Europeans, he thinks he is better than everyone else.


Whoa there cowboy, I've never seen a shred of evidence that you have any ability to think critically, and your posts look to be nothing but copy and pastes from GOP.com. I have no party affiliation and I despise the democrats, on the other hand we've seen you say many times that the Republican party is God-like. You suffer from projection like so many hate spewers on the far fringe right.

And you're saying Malcolm thinks he is better than everybody else? WTF? He's NEVER said anything of the sort, but you say it all the time.

I'm still waiting for you to try to debate any of us instead of this hit and run posting that you do, if you're so great, as your God said "bring it on"...

I'm waiting...

It's just common sense anyways, where do people think all the pollution we throw off ends up? Do they honestly think it has zero effect? Do they understand how our atmosphere works and how it traps heat?

Here you go, to everybody who thinks GW is a scam, go out and turn on your car in your garage and sit there and record the effects, since man is incapable of effecting the planet, your one car shouldn't be capable of changing the composition of the air in your garage.

Note: Don't really do that, because I wouldn't be surprised if you did...

that link works fine .. get a real isp ... yours must suck

The link works today. Obviously it had nothing to do with my ISP. I have a really good ISP, thanks for your concern though.

I must ask you though, you demanded impartial sources, you should return the favor. The UN is hardly an impartial source since they are the ones promoting Kyoto, not to mention their hostility towards the US. We know the UN's interest in this.
I also note that this report is 5 years old. Don't you have anything more current and less biased?



your right .. why should I care about his opinion ?


a fine point-by-point rebuttal to the Lindzen OP

Aside from him leaving out some points why should I care about his opinion?






http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd/

since your web-tv probably will not work with that link either toejam , that was Daniel Kirk-Davidoff , Assistant Professor , Dept. of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science , University of Maryland

My internet works fine, your link was down when I clicked on it last night. It seems to be up today so the problem had nothing to do with my ISP. Thanks for the concern though.

Do you concede that the University system must compete for grants and other funds from the government and private organizaions?

This is getting ridiculous.

I just hope I live long enough to scream "I told you so!" before driving off into the desert in my awesome Mad Max buggy.

Sounds like Gore is in the lineup for the Nobel prize. Personally I am convinced that Global warming is a human issue. Convinced that we can do something about the impact 30 years from now if we start now but not very convinced that that will happen.

But I guess if my childrens children grow up on the edge of the great southern desert. Where the shortage of water has made life a challange amidst the decendants of the refugees we caringly accepted into our midst, it will be ok.

However, just dont see Gore getting any prize until he has really done something. That prize should be reserved for the Scientist that irrevocably proves or disproves global warming.

Interesting article in the Feb/07 Scientific American called "Methane, Plants and Climate Change (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=1367E15B-E7F2-99DF-346DBF33877B8596)" about methane emissions from living plants. In it is a sidebar that compares methane emissions of pre-industrial times -- about 233 million metric tons per year -- to today -- 600 million metric tons a year. Methane concentration in the atmosphere is shown from the year 1000 to the year 2000 and shows an increase from about 700 parts per billion to over 1750 ppb. The line is essentially flat until the mid 1800s where is takes the proverbial "hockey stick" approach: the near three-fold increase has occured in the last 200 years.

Now, methane is interesting because, as we're reminded by the deniers, it is far more potent a GHG than CO2. Indeed, the article points out that a kilo of methane warms the earth more than 23 times what a kilo of CO2 does. So, in addition to the eight-billion tons (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1799459.htm) of CO2 we emit, there's the additional 370 million tons of methane over and above what was naturally produced in pre-industrial times.

Since methane is 23 times more potent as a GHG, that means that we're essentially pumping another 8.51-billion tons of CO2 -- over and above the 8-billion tons of CO2 we're already spewing -- for a total effective tonnage of 16-billion equivalent tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere.

Just for reference, the "cataclysmic" eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 injected "just" 17-million tons of sulfur dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo) into the atmosphere. This event led to a decrease in average northern hemisphere temps of about 1oF and global temps by 0.7oF.

Think about this: Pinotubo's "cataclysmic" 17-million tons is about 0.001 times the equivalent tonnage of CO2 we spew annually -- year in, year out, every year, non-stop -- into the air. Pinotubo's atmospheric effects were dramatic and plain to see. How anyone can look at this and not think our three orders of magnitude more emissions of GHGs every year cannot possibly affect the climate just goes to show how far some people have their heads up their asses. :nonono: :nonono:

Interesting article in the Feb/07 Scientific American called "Methane, Plants and Climate Change (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=1367E15B-E7F2-99DF-346DBF33877B8596)" about methane emissions from living plants. In it is a sidebar that compares me methane emissions of pre-industrial times -- about 233 million metric tons per year -- to today -- 600 million metric tons a year. Methane conentration in the atmosphere is shown from the year 1000 to the year 2000 and shows an increase from about 700 parts per billion to over 1750 ppb. The line is essentially flat until the mid 1800s where is takes the proverbial "hockey stick" approach: the near three-fold increase has occured in the last 200 years.

Now, methane is interesting because, as we're reminded by the deniers, it is far more potent a GHG than CO2. Indeed, the article points out that a kilo of methane warms the earth more than 23 times what a kilo of CO2 does. So, in addition to the eight-billion tons (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1799459.htm) of CO2 we emit, there's the additional 370 million tons of methane over and above what was naturally produced in pre-industrial times.

Since methane is 23 times more potent as a GHG, that means that we're essentially pumping another 8.51-billion tons of CO2 -- over and above the 8-billion tons of CO2 we're already spewing -- for a total effective tonnage of 16-billion equivalent tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere.

Just for reference, the "cataclysmic" eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 injected "just" 17-million tons of sulfur dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo) into the atmosphere. This event led to a decrease in average northern hemisphere temps of about 1oF and global temps by 0.7oF.

Think about this: Pinotubo's "cataclysmic" 17-million tons is about 0.001 times the equivalent tonnage of CO2 we spew annually -- year in, year out, every year, non-stop -- into the air. Pinotubo's atmospheric effects were dramatic and plain to see. How anyone can look at this and not think our three orders of magnitude more emissions of GHGs every year cannot possibly affect the climate just goes to show how far some people have their heads up their asses. :nonono: :nonono:

So far up their asses, their heads are virtually back where they started.

M.

Gore winning a Nobel Prize is as legitimate as Arafat and Carter winning one.

This "prize" is indicative of all that is wrong in the world!

This is getting ridiculous.

I just hope I live long enough to scream "I told you so!" before driving off into the desert in my awesome Mad Max buggy.

You and me both buddy!
I've got a sort of Mad Max buggy... ok its just plain old Toyota troopcarrier, but it'll do the trick. Now all I need is a loudspeaker big enough for me to scream in so that these suckers can hear me all the way in America.

:)