Global Warming

[Sandy Eggo]

Oh how nice, a Goreaphobe meeting.

Hopefully you'll be able to work the environmental crisis into your agenda after you discover that  global warming and Al Gore are not the same thing.

It's kind of silly to disregard an entire issue based on one person you happen to dislike don't you think?

[Exterminator]

Oh how nice, a Goreaphobe meeting.

Hopefully you'll be able to work the environmental crisis into your agenda after you discover that  global warming and Al Gore are not the same thing.

It's kind of silly to disregard an entire issue based on one person you happen to dislike don't you think?

Certainly you're not expecting simple minds to grasp complex problems?

[me]

You mean like the get rich scheme of the carbon credits?  Oh, I understand it completely...

[Henry Hawk]

Oh how nice, a Goreaphobe meeting.

Hopefully you'll be able to work the environmental crisis into your agenda after you discover that  global warming and Al Gore are not the same thing.

It's kind of silly to disregard an entire issue based on one person you happen to dislike don't you think?

You can thank the liberal media for the whole Al Gore/Global Warming deal........THEY are the ones who gave him an Academy Award for movie full of misinformation.........THEY are the ones who gave him a Nobel Prize.......and again, NOBODY is disregarding this issue....I don't know ANYONE who WANTS to trash the earth.  But, Al Gore left a very bad taste, because of his trash talk and his desire to TAX the crap out of Americans to cure this issue...and his scare tactics he used for leverage.............we need level thinking on this.....not a bunch of BS.

[Exterminator]

You can thank the liberal media...

Fallacy number one: there is no such thing as 'the liberal media'; corporate media would be a more appropriate term.

...for movie full of misinformation...

Please explain which parts of the movie (that I'm sure you've not even seen) are misinformation and provide verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific sources to support your claims.

THEY are the ones who gave him a Nobel Prize.

No, after a long and painstaking process in which potential nominees are discussed and scrutinized by experts in their specific disciplines, the prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee which consists of five representatives selected by the Norwegian parliament.  It has nothing to do with the media whatsoever.

...and again, NOBODY is disregarding this issue...

Trivializing it would be a better explanation.

I don't know ANYONE who WANTS to trash the earth.

And yet we continue.

...we need level thinking on this.....not a bunch of BS.

Correct; please keep your brain-washed, uninformed opinions to yourself to avoid muddying up the issue.

[Henry Hawk]

Fallacy number one: there is no such thing as 'the liberal media'; corporate media would be a more appropriate term.

you woud be wrong....Liberal Media is VERY appropriate....

Please explain which parts of the movie (that I'm sure you've not even seen) are misinformation and provide verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific sources to support your claims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gore's-'nine-Inconvenient-Untruths'.html  this is just one site that I grabbed to throw at you....

One example........and the one that MOST stood out at me was the claim that the sea-level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting ice in Antarctica in the very near future......that HAS been debunked already.

No, after a long and painstaking process in which potential nominees are discussed and scrutinized by experts in their specific disciplines, the prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee which consists of five representatives selected by the Norwegian parliament.  It has nothing to do with the media whatsoever.

If you believe THAT, then you are WAY more gullible than I thought.. Those guys are nothing more than a group of government (political) appointees...and to give the award to Gore, who's views have been WIDELY disputed by serveral hundred scientists, shows the political paritsan that they represent....imo

Trivializing it would be a better explanation.

Who is trivializing it?........simply because MOST intelligent people do NOT drink the Gore Kool-aid, or the kyotot treaty crap...does NOT mean it is trivialized.....

And yet we continue.

where have you been?   

Correct; please keep your brain-washed, uninformed opinions to yourself to avoid muddying up the issue.

...take a good long look in the mirror pal....I think you described yourself to a tee...

[Exterminator]

you woud be wrong....Liberal Media is VERY appropriate....

Only to a complete buffoon who knows absolutely nothing about how business and money interests work.

I asked for peer-reviewed scientific sources which you did not provide because you can't

If you believe THAT, then you are WAY more gullible than I thought. Those guys are nothing more than a group of government (political) appointees...and to give the award to Gore, who's views have been WIDELY disputed by serveral hundred scientists, shows the political paritsan that they represent....imo

Your ignorance of the selection process for a Nobel prize is in no way related to my gullibility; it is simply your ignorance which you seem to take such pleasure in flaunting.  It has been proven to you over and over again that climate scientologists overwhelmingly agree on global warming and yet you continue to quote so-called authorities whose areas of expertise have nothing whatsoever to that area of study.

...simply because MOST intelligent people do NOT drink the Gore Kool-aid, or the kyotot treaty crap...does NOT mean it is trivialized.....

That someone who can't conjugate the verb 'to be' thinks he has the right to speak for 'most intelligent people' is laughable albeit sadly pathetic.

where have you been?

Learning.

[me]

Here ya to Exterminator I doubt if you'll read any of it but its at least a start. 
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

[Henry Hawk]

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/26/science/sci-adapt26
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A

Here are few more, but like me, I doubt you'll read any of them...

[DannyBoy]

global warming and Al Gore are not the same thing........

Correct:  One is a human with a self-righteous ego the size of Cleveland.  The other is a myth and like most myth's....some truth but mostly embellishment and over-exaggeration.

[Exterminator]

Here ya to Exterminator I doubt if you'll read any of it but its at least a start. 
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

Let's see...

A list of rebuttals from the Association of British Drivers (who are ostensibly basing their global warming assumptions on observations made through their windshields, an article about a lone geophysicist who doesn't dispute that global warming is occurring but isn't sure what's causing it and a pair of ultra-right-wing tabloids.

Is the concept of peer-reviewed scientific literature really that difficult for you people to understand?  It would seem that many of you have already come to a conclusion and are only willing to consider information that supports their preconceived notions no matter how outlandish the source.  It's a great way to remain blissfully ignorant but it is no way to learn.  You're dead wrong and the majority of the learned, experienced scientists who have spent their careers studying the climate all agree that you are.

[Exterminator]

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/26/science/sci-adapt26
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A

Here are few more, but like me, I doubt you'll read any of them...

I've already read them all and you, like your counterparts, will latch on to any article that supports only that which you have already decided to believe and ignore the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.  You can't fix stupid.

[Henry Hawk]

whatever...it is YOU that is ignoring the overwheliming emprical evidence.......

whatever happened to the "ice age" that your "expert" scientist said was coming back in the late 70's?..........

what about the 'acid rain' that was going to destroy our plantet?.......

[Bo D]

A list of rebuttals from the Association of British Drivers (who are ostensibly basing their global warming assumptions on observations made through their windshields, an article about a lone geophysicist who doesn't dispute that global warming is occurring but isn't sure what's causing it and a pair of ultra-right-wing tabloids.

They also rely heavily on the Oregon Petition where "31,072 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,021 with PhDs" 

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Yet if you look up these people to see their credentials....


A random sample (the first five names from the list alphabetically) would be Earl M. Aagaard, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron.

1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn't find any person by that name in connection to any scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically "large animal surgery").    Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I'm sure has some bearing on climate change).

5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications.

And that signature on their home page - Edward Teller?

Teller died in 2003 at age 95, so it's possible that he did sign this. And given his famously contrarian personality, it's not even unlikely. Even so, the august Dr. Teller was a nuclear physicist–not a climatologist.

Now if you would care to read something by scientists who are relevant to the subject ...
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

1. Krishna Achutarao. Research Scientist at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

2. Robert Adler. NASA Senior Scientist in the Laboratory for Atmospheres and is also currently serving as Project Scientist for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM).

3. Lisa Alexander. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

4. Hans Alexandersson. Climatologist at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute.

5. Richard Allan. Atmospheric scientist, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading.

[Exterminator]

whatever...it is YOU that is ignoring the overwheliming emprical evidence.......

whatever happened to the "ice age" that your "expert" scientist said was coming back in the late 70's?..........

what about the 'acid rain' that was going to destroy our plantet?.......

Like I said, you can't fix stupid.  The overwhelming empirical evidence clearly supports my position despite your inability to understand it or your choice to remain willfully ignorant.

Trotting out the same old, tired, inane arguments doesn't help your assertions either.  The so-called ice age predicted in the 70's was never generally accepted by the scientific community nor did anyone ever suggest that acid rain would 'destroy' the planet but feel free to continue to attempt to cloud the issue with red herrings.

As Bo D illustrates above, your so-called list of scientists who dispute global warming doesn't hold water either.  Not long after it was first introduced, several people whose names appear on it came forward and said that they had never signed any such petition bringing into question the authentity of the entire list.  Additionally, I no more care about a biologist's opinion on global warming than I would want the advice of a proctologist to treat a brain tumor although I will admit that the latter would seem appropriate in your case.

Now the ball's in your court...do you choose to continue to deny the obvious and paint yourself as uninformed or are you willing to read the information at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm ?  If history is any indication, my guess is you'll stick with ignorance.