Al Gores inconvienient truth...

[Lohman446]

Not really though... There is no definitive proof around. In fact there is proof to the contrary

If your only "proof" is a UN study, then I pity you. If I want the truth on something, the most corrupt and political machine on the planet is the last place I would turn. Just Sayin...

I find it amusing that one refers to the other sides evidence as inconclusive, and there own as "proof".

[grEnAlEins]

I find it amusing that one refers to the other sides evidence as inconclusive, and there own as "proof".

I should have said legitimate scientific evidence, sorry

[wjr]

Not really though... There is no definitive proof around. In fact there is proof to the contrary

If your only "proof" is a UN study, then I pity you. If I want the truth on something, the most corrupt and political machine on the planet is the last place I would turn. Just Sayin...

Where did I say "proof" in that sentance? Generally when you put quotes around something that's what it means.

And I'm not sure you understand what I said there. It had nothing to do with proof at all. It had to do with what is commonly accepted by scientists and researchers. The truth is that the majority of scientists and researchers beleive that global warming is being accelerated by humans.

[grEnAlEins]

Where did I say "proof" in that sentance? Generally when you put quotes around something that's what it means.

And I'm not sure you understand what I said there. It had nothing to do with proof at all. It had to do with what is commonly accepted by scientists and researchers. The truth is that the majority of scientists and researchers beleive that global warming is being accelerated by humans.

Or it means for lack of a better word, and that is how it was intended. Sorry for the confusion, it was a bad move on my part.
And the vocal bunch does suggest humans accelerate global warming. This is true. But they do have something at steak. They need you to believe in global warming so that they can get grant money from the worlds governments. That is how climate scientists get money, through grants. If there is more concern about an issue, grant money will flow like wine. And as far as the majority of scientists agreeing to this, I doubt it. Even the UN study used non-scientists in the study to boost the number of people who worked on it. They created an illusory credibility. Also several real scientist have requested that their names be removed from the study due alterations made by the UN committee that review and edited the study. Even the global warming side acknowledges that their viewpoint might not be correct, but the course of action the recommend should be undertaken regardless of the truth. I doubt that this statement came from a scientist, unless there was an underlying motive (e.g. funding). Global warming is essentially a business for those involved.

[wjr]

Or it means for lack of a better word, and that is how it was intended. Sorry for the confusion, it was a bad move on my part.
And the vocal bunch does suggest humans accelerate global warming. This is true. But they do have something at steak. They need you to believe in global warming so that they can get grant money from the worlds governments. That is how climate scientists get money, through grants. If there is more concern about an issue, grant money will flow like wine. And as far as the majority of scientists agreeing to this, I doubt it. Even the UN study used non-scientists in the study to boost the number of people who worked on it. They created an illusory credibility. Also several real scientist have requested that their names be removed from the study due alterations made by the UN committee that review and edited the study. Even the global warming side acknowledges that their viewpoint might not be correct, but the course of action the recommend should be undertaken regardless of the truth. I doubt that this statement came from a scientist, unless there was an underlying motive (e.g. funding). Global warming is essentially a business for those involved.

That's a very cynical way to look at things. How do you think that lie would have started? A convention of geologists, plotting to get more grant money? I've never heard of scientists requesting to be removed from the UN study... but I have heard of them saying that while the claims are true, some of the time frames are a bit exaggerated. Are you sure that's not what you're talking about?

"...the course of action the recommend should be undertaken regardless of the truth."

What's so wrong with that? If we start the recommended course of action, we'd cut down on emissions and get an all around cleaner environment. That's something that ought to be done reguardless of global warming.

[Mind'sEye]

That's really funny coming from a citizen of a country terrified by the threat of global terrorism.

Trying to live in harmony with the Earth certainly seems less onerous than going into wars under false pretexts and spending billions to allow the government to spy on you and control your lives.

LOL, I live in a modest 1300 sq.ft. house. I recycle and drive a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon. My state, California, has led the nation in emission controls for years. When guys like Al Gore And Leonardo Dicaprio start living off the grid in small energy efficient houses, when they stop flying around the world in their jets and when they begin to drive electric cars, which they can no doubt afford to have custom made for them, I will take them a little more seriously.

I don't have much use for federal government interferance. My son in law is British. He moved his audio/software business over here because the opportunities and business climate are much better than back home in the EU.

[grEnAlEins]

That's a very cynical way to look at things. How do you think that lie would have started? A convention of geologists, plotting to get more grant money? I've never heard of scientists requesting to be removed from the UN study... but I have heard of them saying that while the claims are true, some of the time frames are a bit exaggerated. Are you sure that's not what you're talking about?

"...the course of action the recommend should be undertaken regardless of the truth."

What's so wrong with that? If we start the recommended course of action, we'd cut down on emissions and get an all around cleaner environment. That's something that ought to be done reguardless of global warming.

I guess I am a very cynical person. In fact, I know that I am.

Not quite what I am saying about the "convention of geologists" but that notion did make me chuckle. I am stating that it has become fashionable to make this claim. I am suggesting that they do gain from it, and I question their motivation. I think it is more politics and economics than legitimate science.

As for the several scientist that have requested that their names be withdrawn, someone posted a video in this thread (I forgot who posted it, sorry) that interview one of these people. He had to threaten legal action to have his name removed. Yes, I am sure that I am talking about the correct subject

The problem with that is it is not logical. "Even though what I have presented as evidence might not be accurate, you should still do what I say." You really, really do not see an issue with this? I am all for a cleaner environment, as pollution kills animal. If pollution kills animals, then I cannot (I am a hunter). But I do object to fear tactics and end of the world rhetoric. That is why I object to this global warming scare. It is presented as rhetoric to induce wide-spread fear. If you examine the rhetoric for what it is, you will see that the discourse is heavily rooted in fallacy. I see a huge problem with this. That is really what I am getting at.

[wjr]

The problem with that is it is not logical. "Even though what I have presented as evidence might not be accurate, you should still do what I say." You really, really do not see an issue with this? I am all for a cleaner environment, as pollution kills animal. If pollution kills animals, then I cannot (I am a hunter). But I do object to fear tactics and end of the world rhetoric. That is why I object to this global warming scare. It is presented as rhetoric to induce wide-spread fear. If you examine the rhetoric for what it is, you will see that the discourse is heavily rooted in fallacy. I see a huge problem with this. That is really what I am getting at.

That's not how I interpret it. I see it as "We could be wrong, but why risk it?". Why take the chance?

I don't understand the idea of global warming inspiring global fear. People sure don't seem scared by it. I'd say the majority of America doesn't believe in/pays no heed to the threat of global warming. To be honest, I wish it did inspire global fear... it would at least get people to clean up their act.

[grEnAlEins]

That's not how I interpret it. I see it as "We could be wrong, but why risk it?". Why take the chance?

I don't understand the idea of global warming inspiring global fear. People sure don't seem scared by it. I'd say the majority of America doesn't believe in/pays no heed to the threat of global warming. To be honest, I wish it did inspire global fear... it would at least get people to clean up their act.

Fair enough, we just interpret the situation differently. You called me out on being cynical, and I agree, I am. I guess I am just overly suspicious of people.

Quite a few people do fear the ramifications of global warming. In fact, several live down the hall from me. There is a reason that Americans are not up to our anal cavities in fear, we are skeptics. A lot of us are anyway.

If you do not understand the idea that this movement is a fear tactic, watch the news sometime. Watch how the idea is presented and the story is covered. "90% of the land mass will FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD! When will it happen? SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!!" (note that this rendition is not completely serious; it is done in satire, but my fear tactic point is valid IMHO)

The fact that you do not mind the idea of instilling global fear disturbs a me a little bit to be honest. Fear tactics have not traditionally done the world a whole lot of good...

[Recon by Fire]

Oh teh noes! Global Warming! Yes it exist.... because the world is still coming out of The Little Ice Age. Not the start of a cataclysmic event.

Al Gore is also a green capitalist who makes money off of the fear mongering, he is a cannibalistic slug. But he did invent the internet, and pants too.

[FactsOfLife]

Wow, that's really interesting. I'm eager to hear responses on those points.




Yet another liberal hater heard from.

with good reason. tardboy.

[grEnAlEins]

he is a cannibalistic slug.

Now now... he does not actually eat people... does he?

[Recon by Fire]

I saw graphic pics of him doing on FNC, I swear.

[grEnAlEins]

I saw graphic pics of him doing on FNC, I swear.

HAHAHAHAHA!

[FactsOfLife]

Oh teh noes! Global Warming! Yes it exist.... because the world is still coming out of The Little Ice Age. Not the start of a cataclysmic event.

Al Gore is also a green capitalist who makes money off of the fear mongering, he is a cannibalistic slug. But he did invent the internet, and pants too.

and he and his wife's fat *** were the subject of A Love Story.

which of course was the epic search of a husband, to locate some fresh pineapple to go with the cottage cheese on his wife's backside.