An Inconvenient Truth...

[rockbottomsound]

No. They haven't.

No you don't get it, you're supposed to ignore the other studies and scientists that don't agree with that point of view, because "they are in the pocket of big oil." They don't count. When you eliminate the ones that have a different point of view. You have unanimous agreement.

 

[User Name]

No you don't get it, you're supposed to ignore the other studies and scientists that don't agree with that point of view, because "they are in the pocket of big oil." They don't count. When you eliminate the ones that have a different point of view. You have unanimous agreement.

Well then... The entire scientific community has come to agreement on this issue... there is no defined "global warming" and even if there is, there is no evidence that is is man made, nor that man can have any control over substantially altering it.

Man, that was easy. Why did we waste all this time trying to convince them otherwise?

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is some real (i.e. funny) satire from Andy Borowitz.

Supreme Court Gives Gore’s Oscar to Bush

Stunning Reversal for Former Veep

Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received an Academy Award for his global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Oscar and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead.

For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of his Hollywood audience Sunday night, the high court’s decision to give his Oscar to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least.

But in a 5-4 decision handed down Tuesday morning, the justices made it clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his Oscar because President Bush deserved it more.

“It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. “But President Bush has actually helped create global warming.”

In another setback for the former vice president, a group of scientists meeting in Oslo, Norway today said that Mr. Gore was growing at an unsustainable rate.

“The polar ice caps may be shrinking, but Al Gore is clearly expanding,” said Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo.

The scientists concluded that if Mr. Gore continues to expand at his current rate, he could cause the earth to spin off its axis by 2010, sending it hurtling into the sun.

“Here’s an inconvenient truth,” Dr. Kyosuke added. “Al’s got to stay away from those carbs.”

Elsewhere, after foreigners received a record number of Academy Award nominations, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs proposed building a 12-foot high fence around the Kodak Theater.

 

[TheDoctor]

No. They haven't.

In the scientific world, peer review is important. Real science journals use peer review to keep fake studies such those prepared for the tobacco companies from getting published. EXXON and the AEI took a page out of the tobacco company playbook and published fake studies in non-peer reviewed publications.

Again, a ten year survey of peer reviewed scientific publications found no studies disagreeing with global warming. If you disagee, then find a peer reviewed study that disproves this survey.

 

[Andy B]

U.S Border Patrol agents have begun putting the clamps on scores of undocumented aliens who attempt to leave this country illegally. The exodus is a recent phenomenon, and one that is causing a good deal of concern.

“They usually don’t migrate from north to south,” said Border Patrol spokesman Terry Dolance. “It goes against their genetic make-up. Something is spooking them and I’m not exactly sure what it is. It could be the recent spate of immigration raids. But I suspect it has something to do with global warming; just like that angry guy who spits a lot says.”

Global warming proponents agree that severe winter weather across the country could play a role in driving aliens out of America.

“Look, these folks are not prepared for the effects of global warming,” said Berkeley professor of climatology Fig DuBois. “The record snowfalls. The extremely cold temperatures. The sleet and ice storms. They come from countries with warm climates. They are simply not equipped to deal with this.”

Regardless of the reason for the exodus, the work can be risky although at least one man revels in the challenge.

“Is it dangerous?” asked Border Patrol officer Martin Solsberg rhetorically. “It can be. But the simple fact is these little buggers are more scared of you than you are of them. Given the opportunity they’d much rather run away and take a nap in the sun some place. However, when that sunshine is taken away and replaced with blizzards and wintry weather, they can be very unpredictable. ”

One summer does not a summer make nor a juvenile attempt at humour an resoned argument make.

 

[TheDoctor]

One summer does not a summer make nor a juvenile attempt at humour an resoned argument make.

Nelson is attempting satire. Usually satire is funny and so you can tell that it is really satire.

 

[Andy B]

Well then... The entire scientific community has come to agreement on this issue... there is no defined "global warming" and even if there is, there is no evidence that is is man made, nor that man can have any control over substantially altering it.

Man, that was easy. Why did we waste all this time trying to convince them otherwise?

You are correct there are some scientist which dissagree with the accepted theories and although soem people say they are in the pay of interested parties their papers need to be considered. But it is fair to say the overwhelming view is that there is a trend to global warming which has been affected by human activity.

Any when my child sayes what shall we do, I will not say we need to do nothing because there are half a dozen people on a Disney chat website who say Al Gore is making it up!

 

[TheDoctor]

But his house doesn't. It cost upwards of 20 times the typical home. He's obviously got a lot of work to do.

John, whenever you and drudge back up or vet a number, it is a sure sign that it is wrong. This is no exception (i.e. you are WRONG, again). The 20X number cited by the so-called foundation has always seemed wrong to me and someone did some research and found out that this number is as bogus as the so-called foundation that put it out. http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/gores-energy-use.html

The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.

Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house.

As I mentioned earlier if drudge is backing a piece of information, then you can rest assure that it is wrong. Here the so called foundation/gop slime artists both used a number that includes apartments and ignores the average electricity usage for the region where Vice President Gore's home is located. If you look at the per foot usage, Vice President Gore's electric usage is average.

I hope that some facts will put this stupid talking point to bed.

 

[User Name]

A "Convenient" Truth... THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle

 

[User Name]

Gee, not a lot of retort from our misguided friends on the left, since there has been scientific evidence to refute their claims.

I guess it's hard to debate against truth.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Scienc...obal_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".


He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Gee, not a lot of retort from our misguided friends on the left, since there has been scientific evidence to refute their claims.

I guess it's hard to debate against truth.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Scienc...obal_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/

No, I can't speak for others on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but I can and do speak for myself.

There's no point in debating you.

The overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus, while not unanimous, is that not only is global warming a real phenomenon, but that mankind is almost certainly responsible for a great deal of it. I can provide link after link after link after link, but that's already been done ad naseum here and in other threads. You (and others) have chosen to either ignore that or pay it no credence.

The Bush administration, once a staunch opponent of the concept of global warming, now accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus and acknowledges that not only is the phenomenon of global warming real but also that mankind is the primary cause of it. Again, you (and others) have chosen to either ignore that or pay it no credence.

It's a free country, and you are free to embrace the concept that the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus is completely wrong and that you are completely right, as you have chosen to do.

I cannot think of a better textbook definition of futility than to continue a debate with someone who is the epitome of the description above and is incapable of clearly seeing the irony of the last sentence in their post.

 

[Charade]

No, I can't speak for others on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but I can and do speak for myself.

There's no point in debating you.

The overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus, while not unanimous, is that not only is global warming a real phenomenon, but that mankind is almost certainly responsible for a great deal of it. I can provide link after link after link after link, but that's already been done ad naseum here and in other threads. You (and others) have chosen to either ignore that or pay it no credence.

The Bush administration, once a staunch opponent of the concept of global warming, now accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus and acknowledges that not only is the phenomenon of global warming real but also that mankind is the primary cause of it. Again, you (and others) have chosen to either ignore that or pay it no credence.

It's a free country, and you are free to embrace the concept that the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus is completely wrong and that you are completely right, as you have chosen to do.

I cannot think of a better textbook definition of futility than to continue a debate with someone who is the epitome of the description above and is incapable of clearly seeing the irony of the last sentence in their post.

There are more and more credible scientists and experts coming out every day against the idea that man is the primary cause of global warming. Just look.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

No, I can't speak for others on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but I can and do speak for myself.

There's no point in debating you.

The overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus, while not unanimous, is that not only is global warming a real phenomenon, but that mankind is almost certainly responsible for a great deal of it. I can provide link after link after link after link, but that's already been done ad naseum here and in other threads. You (and others) have chosen to either ignore that or pay it no credence.

The Bush administration, once a staunch opponent of the concept of global warming, now accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus and acknowledges that not only is the phenomenon of global warming real but also that mankind is the primary cause of it. Again, you (and others) have chosen to either ignore that or pay it no credence.

It's a free country, and you are free to embrace the concept that the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus is completely wrong and that you are completely right, as you have chosen to do.

I cannot think of a better textbook definition of futility than to continue a debate with someone who is the epitome of the description above and is incapable of clearly seeing the irony of the last sentence in their post.

I have read this thread but have not contributed. Do I believe that global warming is real and that mankind is a primary cause? Yes I do. I've started changing things in life in the hopes of reversing some of the damage that has already been done.

I've watched an Inconveninet Truth and I believe the data and the scientific evidence. If someone is going to choose not to believe, there is nothing we can do about it. The only thing we can do is spread the word, and hopefully more people start making better environmental decisions.

I have begun writing to elected officials to state my views and to strong encourage them to start passing laws that require the lowering of carbon emissions.

The one thing I still just don't get is what harm will be done if we make the environment cleaner and safer for us all. In the end to be environmentally conscience is a win-win situation.

 

[Mugg Mann]

There are more and more credible scientists and experts coming out every day against the idea that man is the primary cause of global warming. Just look.

Believe it or not, I have.

Again, the overwhelming scientific consensus, while not unanimous, is that it is real and that we are the primary cause.

 

[Charade]

Believe it or not, I have.

Good! I have heard the other side.

Again, the overwhelming scientific consensus, while not unanimous, is that it is real and that we are the primary cause.

In your opinion, is it because of CO2 emissions? Is the the primay cause of global warming?

Again, the consensus at one time was that the world was flat. They were wrong.

 

[richiebaseball]

Again, the consensus at one time was that the world was flat. They were wrong.

I'm still not so sure about that one. I vaguely remember falling off the end of the world several times in my youth after a rather spirited night at the pub. If it were truly round, I'm quite certain I would've rolled home.

 

[User Name]

It's a free country, and you are free to embrace the concept that the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus is completely wrong and that you are completely right, as you have chosen to do.

It *IS* a free counrty. However, people who do not believe that mankind plays more than a negligible role in the "warming" (which is debatable, as well - I do not subscribe to the belief that the current temperature is outside of the normal swings that have been going on for millions of years), are not trying to force the environmentalists to live differently.

The opposite is not true. The environmentalists are VERY MUCH trying to infringe on MY doings.

So, if the "freedom" went both ways, most of the us wouldn't have a problem with the "environmental movement". But, like many things on the left, they only believe in "freedom" if it is agreeable to them.

 

[Patch'sD]

How much money is Deep Pockets Al Gore making on selling Carbon Credits

 

[Chicago526]

The one thing I still just don't get is what harm will be done if we make the environment cleaner and safer for us all. In the end to be environmentally conscience is a win-win situation.

I've asked the same questions on this and other threads on the same topic, and rarely to I get anyone to answer.

Even if you take global climate change out of the equation, clean air, clean water, and less dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) are all good things in and of themselves. Why some people still feel the need to kick and scream about this issue is beyond me. "But you're making me change the way I do things" they whine. Grow the hell up. You don't get to turn the Earth into a garbage dump just because you're too lazy to make some changes. It would be great if everyone in the world would take it upon themselves to change. But as history (and this very thread!) have shown, it almost always takes government action to make broad changes in how companies and the public do things.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I've asked the same questions on this and other threads on the same topic, and rarely to I get anyone to answer.

Even if you take global climate change out of the equation, clean air, clean water, and less dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) are all good things in and of themselves. Why some people still feel the need to kick and scream about this issue is beyond me. "But you're making me change the way I do things" they whine. Grow the hell up. You don't get to turn the Earth into a garbage dump just because you're too lazy to make some changes. It would be great if everyone in the world would take it upon themselves to change. But as history (and this very thread!) have shown, it almost always takes government action to make broad changes in how companies and the public do things.

Great minds think alike!

I do think we have a responsibility to the envinronment. It is in everyone's best interest support clean air and water, and as you said decrease our dependence on non-renewable power.