Al Gore-how inconvenient truth is?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Dottore

Exactly.

Actually, I think even the 400 oil-industry funded scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming. Their only claim is that human activity is likely not a major factor. And on that slim hope - they criticize everyone trying to address the problem.

10,000 scientists, who actually possess and knowledge of the subject? Lie.
You say those 400 scientists we quoted are funded by the oil industry? And you have proof of that or are you telling a lie also?

I challenge either one of you to provide evidence to back up your claims. I do not think you can do it because you simply made them up. That is dishonest. My mother taught me not to do that when I was a very young boy. Your mothers apparently did not. Your dishonest claims and tactics smack of desperation. What you wish were true and what you have tried so hard to support is slowly slipping away and you hate it.

[fintstone]

Of course it is all a fabrication. In fact, many of the 400 scientists that dispute Gore’s silliness are members of the groups which supposedly have a “consensus” agreeing with him. Note in the article below that Gore’s claims are in some cases 15 times the IPCC’s numbers. Also, here is a link to the senate report of the 400 (non-oil industry scientists):
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Global Con-sensus
December 21, 2007: 08:05 PM EST
Dec. 24, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) --
Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.
In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore's assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.
Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.
Among the IPCC's warming "deniers" is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.
"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," he said. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output."
Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.
Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn't even predict the past.
Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) , though she didn't name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.
This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.
Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore's warming theories, but the U.N. "censored" them.
By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its "failure to act" on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe's output continued to grow. So who's failing to act?
Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe's 400 scientists and any one of Gore's choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?

[Moneyguy1]

Did you guys actually READ the three references I posted, especially # 3?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

Did you guys actually READ the three references I posted, especially # 3?

Read all but #3. The link didn't work.

[Moneyguy1]

#3: Did I list it wrong?http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/climatechangewebuse.pdf

It is an Adobe file.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

#3: Did I list it wrong?http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/climatechangewebuse.pdf

It is an Adobe file.

I can't get it to work.

[Moneyguy1]

OK...For some reqson it is truncated. THe last part after the word "repwhitepapers" is /climatechangewebuse.pdf.

See if that works

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

OK...For some reqson it is truncated. THe last part after the word "repwhitepapers" is /climatechangewebuse.pdf.

See if that works

Yes, I tried that already but no luck. The hyperlink only appears truncated, but the properties are:
epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/climatechangewebuse.pdf

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Of course it is all a fabrication. In fact, many of the 400 scientists that dispute Gore’s silliness are members of the groups which supposedly have a “consensus” agreeing with him. Note in the article below that Gore’s claims are in some cases 15 times the IPCC’s numbers. Also, here is a link to the senate report of the 400 (non-oil industry scientists):
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Global Con-sensus
December 21, 2007: 08:05 PM EST
Dec. 24, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) --
Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.
In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore's assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.
Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.
Among the IPCC's warming "deniers" is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.
"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," he said. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output."
Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.
Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn't even predict the past.
Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) , though she didn't name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.
This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.
Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore's warming theories, but the U.N. "censored" them.
By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its "failure to act" on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe's output continued to grow. So who's failing to act?
Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe's 400 scientists and any one of Gore's choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?

finstone,

You like to play sophmoric games instead of actually debating a point. You reduce every subject to semantics or nonsense. You rely on asking other posters to "prove" or substantiate every single word they may post. But does that apply to you also?

If yes, please provide the documentation...date, place, source, etc for what YOU posted to start this thread?

And yes, I fully realize that your first thought will be to say "hey, those are his words not mine" but let's cut that bull***** since YOU posted them per YOUR position. So here you go, and remember: give us name, place, date, source for each of these statements that was in YOUR original post or admit that you are a liar:

"Gore...he's fluent in the international language that translates every wrong into an indictment of Americans." In this one, please concentrate on the word "every" and list the wrongs in alphabetical order?

"Gore's agenda of forcing America to accept a lesser place on the planet." That's a serious charge so please list who reached that conclusion and what are the proven facts that it is based upon and who are the authors?


"the United States will trim its greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent during the next decade..." List the documentation for this conclusion? Studies cited, dates, places, authors, etc.?

"Throwing the nation into an economic tailspin to address a situation we don't yet fully understand would be irresponsible." Again list studies cited, dates, places, authors?

"if Gore and his Bali disciples prevail, growth in the United States and other developed nations will grind to a quick halt" List who, what, where, and by what proven facts was this conclusion reached?

And finstone, please remember to use your own rules where anything that cannot be proven is an intentional lie. Thanx much.

And good luck...we eagerly await your response.

[john70t]

Humans having any impact on global warming is a myth. 400 out of 10,000 scientists agree.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

finstone,

You like to play sophmoric games instead of actually debating a point. You reduce every subject to semantics or nonsense. You rely on asking other posters to "prove" or substantiate every single word they may post. But does that apply to you also?

You are first that I have ever seen in a single post, post an outright lie, then lie about that lie. Then, to top that, in the same thread, plagiarize someone else (who, it turns out, also lied) and tried to pass their words off as your own.
I cannot image how you have the nerve to even post here...much less attempt to question someone else. Have you no shame?

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by fintstone

You are first that I have ever seen in a single post, post an outright lie, then lie about that lie. Then, to top that, in the same thread, plagiarize someone else (who, it turns out, also lied) and tried to pass their words off as your own.
I cannot image how you have the nerve to even post here...much less attempt to question someone else. Have you no shame?

More gobbleygook from fin....

Why did you not even attempt to validate what you posted to start this thread? Your lack of an attempt speaks volumes.

Gosh, the least I expected was that you would be able to find a verb that wasn't conjugated.

[WI wide body]

Okay fin,

Let's see if you can attack them one at a time:

"Throwing the nation into an economic tailspin to address a situation we don't yet fully understand would be irresponsible." Again list studies cited, dates, places, authors?

So................................................ ......?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

More gobbleygook from fin....

Why did you not even attempt to validate what you posted to start this thread? Your lack of an attempt speaks volumes.

Gosh, the least I expected was that you would be able to find a verb that wasn't conjugated.

What a troll. Why must you continue to make a fool of yourself? Haven't you been laughed at enough already? Only a fool would ask someone to research the sources in someone else's article...

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

Okay fin,

Let's see if you can attack them one at a time:

"Throwing the nation into an economic tailspin to address a situation we don't yet fully understand would be irresponsible." Again list studies cited, dates, places, authors?

So................................................ ......?

Incredible. Have you no shame? You posted that as if those were my words although you know they are not. You are so dishonest.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by fintstone

What a troll. Why must you continue to make a fool of yourself? Haven't you been laughed at enough already? Only a fool would ask someone to research the sources in someone else's article...

So why do you ask for validation when others make a post. Want some examples of when you;ve done it?

Or do you not believe what you posted to start this thread?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

So why do you ask for validation when others make a post. Want some examples of when you;ve done it?

Or do you not believe what you posted to start this thread?

I don't know if you are very stupid or just being a troll...but I will attempt to explain it to you. There is a big difference between making up "facts" and "quotes" like you and some others that post here do...and posting the words of others...that are appropriately sourced. When you post a "quote" or a "fact" that is obviously fabricated...why would you not expect to be called on it? Similarly when you make posts that are exactly the same...word for word...as another writer...why would you not expect to be called for plagiarism?

I see no reason to doubt the facts in the article I posted..nor do I doubt that the parts of his writing that are clearly opinion...are his opinion. If you can find a falsehood in the article, please point it out so we can discuss the validity of your point...or take it up with the author...or both.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I don't know if you are very stupid or just being a troll...but I will attempt to explain it to you. There is a big difference between making up "facts" and "quotes" like you and some others that post here do...and posting the words of others...that are appropriately sourced. When you post a "quote" or a "fact" that is obviously fabricated...why would you not expect to be called on it? Similarly when you make posts that are exactly the same...word for word...as another writer...why would you not expect to be called for plagiarism?

I see no reason to doubt the facts in the article I posted..nor do I doubt that the parts of his writing that are clearly opinion...are his opinion. If you can find a falsehood in the article, please point it out so we can discuss the validity of your point...or take it up with the author...or both.

Let me try to make this as simple and as dummy-proof as I possibly can:

Do you (fintstone) believe what you posted to start this thread?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

Let me try to make this as simple and as dummy-proof as I possibly can:

Do you (fintstone) believe what you posted to start this thread?

Ok. Have it your way. I started this thread with the words: “An excellent read on Al Gore's recent trip to Bali.” Yes, I very much believe it is an excellent read. Don't you?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

More gobbleygook from fin....
Why did you not even attempt to validate what you posted to start this thread? Your lack of an attempt speaks volumes.

Gosh, the least I expected was that you would be able to find a verb that wasn't conjugated.

Well, along with Mr. Finstone, I TOO cannot image how you have the nerve to even post here...on this (Mr. Fintstone's, by YOUR OWN acknowledgement!) thread. You should have more respect rather than hollering SOPHOMORICISM! and GOBBLEYGOOK! and lying about liars telling lies about liars lies and generally being disruptive.

It seems that everyone here agrees that humankind contributes to global warming; some cavalierly waving it off as inconsequential, others adressing it as a serious question (and telling lies and making MILLIONS in the process).

This will not be settled until the bergs and glaciers are finished melting (it's incontrovertible that they are - NO LIE!) and we can measure watermarks on buildings in London, New York City, etc..

So, for the next 5 years, as sea level rises, can't we all just get along?

Oh yeah, and you're stupid, everyone is laughing at you and you're a troll!