Originally Posted by 7960 Gore created the bottleneck. No, the global warming deniers created the Al Gore bottleneck. It's obvious to anyone following the argument. It's demonstrated clearly on this very thread. The article in the first post mentioned Al Gore's name ten times. You (I'll count you among the ...
12-29-2007, 03:52 PM
| #41 | ||||
| Here's to you...  Liberal 
| Originally Posted by 7960 No, the global warming deniers created the Al Gore bottleneck. It's obvious to anyone following the argument. It's demonstrated clearly on this very thread. The article in the first post mentioned Al Gore's name ten times. You (I'll count you among the deniers, if that's okay) were the first poster to mention his name on the thread. Even the title of the thread invokes Gore.
Any casual perusal of global warming comment threads here and in other forums will prove this to be true. Deniers constantly try to frame the entire global warming argument through Al Gore, and think that if they can discredit him, they can discredit the entire premise of anthropogenic climate change. Unfortunately for the deniers, some of us can actually think and talk about global warming without using Al Gore as the sole lynchpin of our arguments. Originally Posted by RMNIXON So, you think that some, most, or all of the corporations on that list stand to make money off global warming hype? How does that jibe with the idea that global warming hype is a socialist/environmentalist plot to destroy capitalism/energy companies?
More specifically, how do you think that Arch Coal, Exxon/Mobil, DuPont, Dow Chemical, and International Paper stand to actually MAKE money off global warming hype? I would be very curious to read your answer. Another question: If some of those coal/oil/chemical/pulpwood companies had solid scientific information that agreed with the deniers, wouldn't it really be in their best interest to bring it forward? Originally Posted by RMNIXON Yet, you are the one quoting a politicians blog as evidence of the lack of a scientific consensus. Your post was responded to with a list that represents a clear and overwhelming consensus among all kinds of scientific and academic organizations here and around the world. Yet, this seems to signify nothing to you about the true state of scientific opinion regarding this subject.
This debate IS driven by science. The scientific and academic organizations are doing their research, they're looking at the data, they're coming to their conclusions, and those conclusions are reflected in the consensus. You don't like their conclusions, you don't like one of the messengers, fine... but that doesn't change the fact that all the scientific and academic organizations agree. If the scientific consensus is not real, why is there not one single scientific, academic, or corporate organization willing to endorse the views of the deniers? This is a question I've been asking for months, and I still haven't gotten even close to getting an answer. | ||||
     |
|
12-29-2007, 04:43 PM
| #42 | ||||
| Bokonist  Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by 7960 I never really got how, "Gore uses more energy than me", ever added anything. It's like when someone told me that NASA deserved funding cuts because of that ink pen that writes in space vs pencil thing. Anecdotal stuff like that is just a distraction.
| ||||
| |
|
12-29-2007, 05:27 PM
| #43 | ||||
| Political Genius  Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere I obviously can't give you the answers to conspiracies I never posted in the first place. My concern involved objectivity not hidden plots. Being dishonest and just being stupid, emotional, and acting like sheep are not the same thing. You imply that either side of the question "knows" something and therefore must hide it. I think both may be clueless!
There will be lots of money to be made when the government starts throwing big dollars around to help change the way industry behaves. Carbon credits are already looking like a scam. I believe in free markets. That does not mean all industry does. If the system is loaded, might as well make sure it is loaded in your favor. Why do you think they give so much money to both political parties? As for the last question I don't get that either. I thought that was the point. That any anti-global warming or even natural global warming claims were corporate propaganda? What did I miss? 
__________________ Sock It To Me!  "Bureaucracy is a Parasite that Preys on Free Thought and Suffocates Free Spirit!" - Douglas Adams | ||||
| |
|
12-29-2007, 05:30 PM
| #44 | ||||
| Political Genius Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft OK, but I think it is fair to say he emits more Co2 than I do!
 | ||||
| |
|
12-29-2007, 05:47 PM
| #45 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft To me it's kinda like a pro-life activist who has had 29 abortions or an animal rights activist who makes millions off slaughtering animals. But to each his own I suppose.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. | ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 04:13 AM
| #46 | ||||
| Bokonist Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by JaJae So if I said, you shouldn't abuse animals. Does it add anything to the discussion for you to say, well the president of Peta does.
| ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 10:46 AM
| #47 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere No, al gore does. Keep reading.
Originally Posted by nbiggershaft Posted earlier
You're not making the same argument. To make it the same would be if you said people shouldn't abuse animals and YOU go off and continue to abuse animals. If you think it's such a big issue why continue committing the act? Al Gore tells me global warming is the biggest issue ever to face man. But every day he tells me that he's also got a bigger "carbon footprint" than my entire neighborhood. His house uses enough electricity to power my house and 12*** more just like it (I was wrong earlier when I said 4). I can understand needing to fly places to get the message out, but if someone told me "lack of clean water is the biggest issue ever to face man" and he watered his lawn daily I'd think maybe he doesn't really believe what he's saying. | ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 11:26 AM
| #48 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| ^ What he said. Al Gore has essentially be chosen to be the voice of the media and other global warming alarmists. He does not preach sound science or practice what he preaches. If the only problem with Al Gore was that he was a lying hypocritical jackass I would agree, it adds nothing to the discussion. But when you add it on top of all the other issues such as his receiving money for BS carbon credit investments, donating money to himself, lying about the science of the issue, trying to quench scientific debate and then not even practicing what he preaches. Holy geez, now we have a problem. Perhaps one of these (other than lying about the science) wouldn't be such a major problem. But when you start to add it all up it gives you an idea of what the global warming debate is about for the mainstream alarmists. The media and scientific community made Al Gore the focal point of the debate. It is a task he wears proudly. He tells me how I should live my life and even tries to legislate it. I can't discuss the way he lives his? | ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 11:42 AM
| #49 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by JaJae
 No, that's well said. People bitch "this isn't about al gore!" but they're wrong. It's entirely about al gore. When the spokesman for the issue doesn't abide by what he's saying, it's a problem. | ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 02:00 PM
| #50 | ||||
| Bokonist Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by 7960 Thats fine if you are debating Gore. But you were the one who brought him into the conversation. Just like I brought some Peta guy into a conversation about abusing animals.
Honestly this is coming from a person not entirely convinced. But you can't dismiss the work of thousands of scientists by bringing up the hypocrisy of Gore in any discussion. | ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 03:20 PM
| #51 | ||||
| Junkie libertarian
| Originally Posted by RMNIXON But Al Gore is donating his entire salary to help with global warming, that is giving!*
*note, this does not include his stock options | ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 06:20 PM
| #52 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft But you can dismiss the work of scientists that are skeptics?
 | ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 06:45 PM
| #53 | ||||
| Political Genius Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by hsmith
What payroll would that be anyway? Does he even have a regular job these days? Maybe Leonardo Dicaprio sends him a monthly check? | ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 07:13 PM
| #54 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by hsmith link?
| ||||
| |
|
12-30-2007, 07:36 PM
| #55 | ||||
| Bokonist Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz who said I do?
| ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 09:43 AM
| #56 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft Nobody, it was a question
 Do you or do you not? | ||||
| |
|
01-01-2008, 12:45 AM
| #57 | ||||
| Here's to you... Liberal
| Originally Posted by 7960 Go right ahead and hate him for his hypocrisy! Hate him and distrust him and ignore him and refuse to dignify him by bringing his sorry, lying, hypocritical ass up in a respectable discussion about the scientific consensus as it relates to anthropogenic global warming, for fuck's sake!!! But, you can't do that can you?
You couldn't do it on a fucking bet! The funny thing is that the alarmists seem to be the only ones that can discuss global warming without bringing up Al Gore! Conversely, it seems that the deniers can't even conceive of the possibility of engaging in a discussion about global warming without making Gore's hypocrisy the crux of the entire argument. Pretty weak. You deniers are the ones that keep constantly bringing Gore up in global warming discussions. Even the most cursory look at global warming threads both on this forum (and anywhere on the net) easily proves this to be true, and, by denying it, you look like idiotic partisan fools who can't even read. To repeat an obvious example that has not been countered at all: A denier is the one that brought his name into the thread first. The thread title, written by a denier, is a direct dig at Gore. The initial article denying the existence of a scientific consensus mentions Gore's name TEN times. When you say Al Gore created the bottleneck, you are wrong. The deniers are the ones that insist on making Al Gore the crux of every argument about global warming. The deniers think that if they can discredit Al Gore, that somehow they can discredit the entire argument about anthropogenic climate change. It simply isn't so. You deniers feel the need to shoehorn Gore into every single discussion about climate change. To you deniers, the whole global warming argument hinges entirely one fat old ex-politicians hypocrisy. If one politician is a hypocrite, you think that it gives you the freedom to deny what every single scientific, academic, and corporate organization has concluded about global warming. Heck, you think it gives you the freedom to ignore the fact that every single major scientific, academic, and corporate organization has even reached a conclusion about anthropogenic global warming! "Let's see, we have every major science academy in the world, every major climate organization in the world, every major academic institution in the world, and dozens of energy companies around the world (whose bottom lines should require an accurate assessment of the science), but I'll just go ahead and completely ignore their conclusions, and even deny the fact that they have REACHED conclusions... because some fat old ex-politician is a hypocrite!!! That's really the important thing in this argument!" It makes no sense, but that is exactly what you are doing. I can tell you and JaJae hate Al Gore and think he is a hypocrite. So what? Nobody cares. I would characterize myself as one of the most vocal forum members arguing for the existence of the scientific consensus, and I don't give a shit about Gore's hypocrisy or how much you personally hate Gore. I don't even care what Al Gore has to say about global warming. I did my own research and came to my own conclusions without Al Gore being a factor, can you imagine? No, you deniers probably can't... I think that if someone really cares about the issue of anthropogenic climate change, they would seek out the opinions of experts and discuss those opinions. If someone is dead set against acknowledging anything about anthropogenic climate change, they make politicans assertions the primary focal point of their arguments, I.e. Inhofe's blog, Al Gores' hypocrisy. And then you deniers have the gall to say it is the other side that is trying to make it a political issue! Originally Posted by JaJae For JaJae, it is all about Al Gore and his hypocrisy, and nothing about the scientific consensus, which agrees with Al Gore. Talk about an inconvenient truth...
Originally Posted by JaJae Bullshit. IMHO, you should be ashamed to be on this forum continually shoveling out the bullshit the way you do.
Show me how many times Al Gore's name is mentioned in the IPCC IV report. I'll wait. Show me how many organizations in the scientific community mention Al Gore in their statements about anthropogenic global warming. I'll wait. JaJae, I don't think you would know an honest argument about global warming if it smacked you right on the face. Originally Posted by JaJae Sure you can, but you shouldn't dismiss the conclusions of all the academic and scientific organizations the way that you do. You can hate on Al Gore and rant on and on about his hypocrisy (as you already do) but you shouldn't dismiss the scientific consensus or even the existence of the scientific consensus simply because you hate Al Gore.
Your personal hatred of Al Gore has made you deniers all blind to reason. Don't you remember when a UK judge ruled that "An Inconvenient Truth" was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact? You continually calling Gore a liar shows your personal bias, and reveals your real concern and motivation behind your position. You want to pick apart little details and call them lies to justify your personal loathing of the man, but the sad truth is that every scientific organization on the planet agrees with Gore's basic message: Global warming is happening, human activity is contributing, and the risk of inaction is real. You deniers may want to hairsplit, but nothing you say will obscure that essential fact. (Actually, the way you ignore that fact and focus upon Gore's hypocrisy instead goes a great way toward demonstrating your basic intellectual dishonesty when it comes to discussing this subject.) You don't care about what scientific organizations have to say, you don't care what academic institutions have to say, you don't even care what energy corporations have to say. All you care about is Al Gore's hypocrisy. The global warming debate does not begin and end with Al Gore, no matter how hard you try to make it so, and no matter how much you try and insist otherwise. I get the feeling that if some people were offered the option of cutting off their noses or agreeing with anything that Al Gore even thought of agreeing with, there would be a lot of severed noses on the floor. | ||||
| |
