Quantcast

Flaky Flick Suffers From 'truth' Decay

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
GORE'S HOT AIR
FLAKY FLICK SUFFERS FROM 'TRUTH' DECAY
By KYLE SMITH

BAD SPIN: Standing like a god in the heavens, Al Gore foresees doom for us all in his global-warning documentary. BAD SPIN: Standing like a god in the heavens, Al Gore foresees doom for us all in his global-warning documentary.

May 24, 2006 --
Rating: :stosh:

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH



AL GORE'S global-warming documentary, "An Incon venient Truth," is sure to get an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary, but Gore should campaign for Best Actor, too.

Avoiding the usual vein-popping diatribes, he comes across as learned, calm and folksy. But much of what Gore says in this slide show he gives to people whose minds are not yet fully formed (undergraduates, actors) is absurd, and his assertions often contradict each other.

He implies that no reputable scientists dispute anything he says - basically, that the ice caps are melting and people on the 50th floor of the Empire State Building had better learn to swim. But there is wide disagreement about whether humans are causing global warming (climate change preceded the invention of the Escalade) and about whether we should be worried about the trends. Look carefully at Gore's charts and you'll see that the worst horrors take place in the future of his imagination.

His implication that he is our only hope - every ticket bought for this movie amounts to a soft-money contribution to his 2008 campaign - is ridiculous. He and his friends were in charge for eight years. His charts say global warming got worse in that time. The environment doesn't seem to care whether the president is a Texas oilman or the Man from Hope.

Global warming hasn't noticed that we got the lead out of our gasoline or that Stage One smog days in Los Angeles fell from 121 in 1977 to zero in 2004. All regulations and taxes to date have done nothing. Does this hint that pollution isn't the cause?

Gore claims, with pie-chart-in-the-sky dreaminess, that unspecified measures can reduce emissions to 1970 levels. He assesses the tradeoff between the economy and the environment with the kind of buffoonery you'd expect in a Marxist comic book, displaying a cartoon of a scale with Earth on one side and bars of gold on the other. "OK, on one side we have gold bars," he says. "Mmm, mmm, don't they look good!"

Why doesn't he get specific and replace the "gold bar" side of the scale with, say, a $50,000 tax on SUVs? The ensuing destruction of the car business would hurt blue-collar workers, not the rich. What if global warming continued unabated? Gore's faith-based pessimism would lead him to call for even more taxes.

People are skeptical about global warming because it builds up to the same chorus as every other lefty hymn: more taxes, more hypocritical scolding (the film is the brainchild of Larry David's wife, Laurie, part of the community of people who drive a Prius to the private plane) and especially more America-bashing.

Gore says that America, alone, is the problem. Taking us to China, he ignores the filth spewed into the air by its coal-fired cities. He does not meet with bronchitic citizens who wear surgical masks outdoors and pause to hawk up brown gunk every few minutes. Instead, he tells us America is lagging behind. "China," he says, "is on the cutting edge" of environmentalism. Nonsense.

Gore is a dangerous evangelist for whom all roads lead to his sole, holy revelation. Remember how his son was injured in a car accident, the story he told at the 1992 convention? He's still telling it, and what was once touching has become exploitative. This time, the accident's meaning is that he wondered whether the Earth would still be there for his son. (Never mind that earlier in the film, he dates his eco-awakening to his Harvard years).

A sister who smoked and died of lung cancer? The lesson is that those who used to deny that smoking caused disease were wrong, so anyone who doubts catastrophic global warming must also be wrong.

Still not convinced that Gore's mind has only one emission? "We have to think differently about war," he says, referring to environmental effects of weapons. "We can't just mindlessly continue the patterns of the past." It's a chilling statement: Even when bombs are flying, Gore promises to measure CO2 first.

The man's shamelessness is astounding when he compares himself to Churchill, but that's not the worst of it. The final shot of Gore shows him bravely silhouetted against the cosmos, a lone figure tenderly surveying the firmament. The job he really wants, no recount can give him.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,361
7,760
N8, your "article" is almost free of content. if vapid hyperbole and hand-waving makes you feel better at night, then good for you.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
ohio said:
Which truth and what agenda? Specifically.
Boy, it's easy to tell you haven't been around here very much lately. Trying to engage N8? You've got so many more useful things you could be doing...breathing, eating, jerking off into a tube sock :D
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
This is what passes for "truth" in N8 land. The author makes a bunch of statements disparaging Gore (although no need to be said why he has to be disparaged, much like Hillary Clinton bashing) the masses go along with it, and the author's opinions about Gore somehow become facts against him. Unfortunately for those of us who actually like to think, there are many N8s out there.

Unfortunately for all of us, including the N8s of the world, global warming is a real issue that affects all of us, and we are doing nothing about it. We can wait until the rest of the world cuts off our oil supply (DRB's argument) or we can take pro-active measures and do something about it. This doesn't mean living in the stone age (another over-reaction from the N8s of the world) but it does mean making some tough choices.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Is Bill Frist thinking of a presidential run?

Cause if so, it could be a TN vs. TN race for the presidency! That'll make 4 from this hellhole!
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
nice not linking to the original article (or giving credit that it was the NY Post), but you should know that it's way too easy to find that kind of information out. it's almost like you thought that the fact that it was the NYP would discredit the argument. :rofl:

interesting bit about china, though, I've been and the polution there is worse than here. *much* worse. I'll reserve judgement till I see it, but I'd rather have it be a "look world, we have to change things" instead of "look America, we suck, we have to change things" type of film.

but yeah, anything that comes out of that rag NYP deserves at least a :think:, a :clue:, possibly a :mad:, although usually it's just :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: .
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Warmed Over
Al Gore's new movie is the feel-good hit of the summer--but not much more.
The Wall Street Journal | May 31, 2006 | HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.

It's only been out a week, but audiences seem not to have poured forth from Al Gore's movie and, in an unprecedented reversal of political polarity, demanded higher gasoline prices.
This is bad news for Republicans, who will bear the burden of high gas prices to the polls in November. Not that Mr. Gore's movie advocates higher gasoline prices. It reportedly doesn't advocate any policy that would actually relieve the fears of climate worriers. When he last sought the White House in 2000, recall, it was Mr. Gore who persuaded President Clinton to open up the strategic reserve to provide consumers with cheaper gas, harm to the climate be darned.

Here's a test. What if science showed conclusively that global warming is produced by natural forces, with all the same theorized ill effects for humanity, but that human action could forestall natural change? Or what if man-made warming were real, but offsetting the arrival of a natural ice age? Would Mr. Gore tell us meekly to submit to whatever nature metes out because it's "natural"?
Mr. Gore's next movie should be about the urge to propitiate the gods with sacrifices, a ritual whose appeal did not go out with the Aztecs. Yes, Al, let us give billions to alternative energy bureaucrats and emissions regulators. This we do as a tribute to your shamanism, although it will make little appreciable difference to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

That said, a valid service is performed in satisfying the eternal human appetite for gloom and doom (and no virgins were sacrificed), distracting people from the reality of life, which is that we all are doomed, while the universe, the Earth and all that environmentalists hold dear will go remorselessly on and on without us.

In a million years, the time it takes the earth to sneeze, the planet will likely be shorn of any conspicuous sign we were ever here, let alone careless with our CO2, dioxins, etc. Talk about an inconvenient truth.

How much more securing, in a way, to believe we are ruining the planet than the planet just does not care about us, and will run rampant with life long after we are dust. And how pleasant to be able to transmute our fury over our fate into incoherent feelings of self-heroism against our present "enemies." Thus Washington Post columnist, and future dust, Sebastian Mallaby: "By their contempt for expert opinion on everything from Iraqi reconstruction to the cost of their tax cuts, Republicans have turned [Al Gore] into a hero. By their serial dishonesty, Republicans have created a market for 'An Inconvenient Truth.' "

That felt good, didn't it? That satisfied a need.

But we digress. A remarkable and improbable thing is that, despite presumably devoting decades of study to the subject of global warming, nothing Al Gore has learned leads him to say anything that would strike the least informed, most dogmatic "green" as politically incorrect. He doesn't discover virtues in nuclear power. He doesn't note the cost-benefit advantages of strategies that would remove CO2 from the atmosphere, rather than those that would stop its creation.
Anybody who deeply searches into any subject of popular debate inevitably comes back with views and judgments to shock the casual thinker. Mr. Gore utterly fails to vouchsafe this reliable telltale of seriousness.

That man-made carbon dioxide has a net planetary warming effect is an important hypothesis, one that science can make stronger or weaker, but can't prove. It may be true, but a layperson only has to look into the antecedents of today's "consensus" to realize it wouldn't be too surprising if tomorrow's consensus were that CO2 is cooling, or neutral, or warming here and cooling there.

And evidence of warming is not evidence of carbon-driven warming. These are different things, at least until scientists can be reasonably certain they've eliminated other factors and interrelationships that contribute to climate variability. But scientists are not close to understanding or even knowing all the factors that play into "climate change," a process that might as well be called "climate," since climate is always changing.

Finally, warming and what might cause warming are subjects entirely separable from the urge to gather up all the most dire and extreme speculation about what a warming earth would be like for humans and present it as scientific "truth."

Mr. Gore's narrative isn't science, but science fiction. It also contains a large element of political fiction, relying on the hack theme of good guys versus bad guys. Hint to filmmakers: An honest policy argument usually takes the form of one of two questions: "Whose rights trump?" and "What's welfare maximizing?"
Mr. Gore did not discover global warming and hasn't been a voice in the wilderness. Our political system has looked at the question closely, in a way Mr. Gore's film doesn't, and repeatedly concluded that the cost of action is greater than the known or surmised risks. That's all it can do. Thus the Senate and Presidents Clinton and Bush all made clear that they wouldn't sign up for a Kyoto gesture that imposes real costs with no real benefits.

This argument will come back again and again, as it must. As for the auteur, where many politicians seem like overhungry adolescents, Mr. Gore seems like a stifled 9-year-old--by turns spoiled and bullied, unwilling fully to meet expectations but unwilling also to take his own path. So what about gas prices? He needs to decide: Does he want to be a presidential contender or does he want to be the deliverer of "inconvenient truths" about climate change?
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
N8 said:
Here's a test. What if science showed conclusively that global warming is produced by natural forces, with all the same theorized ill effects for humanity, but that human action could forestall natural change? Or what if man-made warming were real, but offsetting the arrival of a natural ice age? Would Mr. Gore tell us meekly to submit to whatever nature metes out because it's "natural"?
Yes, let's ignore what science is telling us so that we can pose hypotheticals all day long.
And how pleasant to be able to transmute our fury over our fate into incoherent feelings of self-heroism against our present "enemies." Thus Washington Post columnist, and future dust, Sebastian Mallaby: "By their contempt for expert opinion on everything from Iraqi reconstruction to the cost of their tax cuts, Republicans have turned [Al Gore] into a hero. By their serial dishonesty, Republicans have created a market for 'An Inconvenient Truth.' "

That felt good, didn't it? That satisfied a need.
Irony, thy name is Holman.
That man-made carbon dioxide has a net planetary warming effect is an important hypothesis, one that science can make stronger or weaker, but can't prove. It may be true, but a layperson only has to look into the antecedents of today's "consensus" to realize it wouldn't be too surprising if tomorrow's consensus were that CO2 is cooling, or neutral, or warming here and cooling there.
Again the ice age canard. Can someone tell these idiots that we have explanations for that?
And evidence of warming is not evidence of carbon-driven warming. These are different things, at least until scientists can be reasonably certain they've eliminated other factors and interrelationships that contribute to climate variability. But scientists are not close to understanding or even knowing all the factors that play into "climate change," a process that might as well be called "climate," since climate is always changing.
There is a strong correlation between warming and carbon-driven warming. In no other science would one be forced to eliminate all other factors before someone would accept the correlation.
Finally, warming and what might cause warming are subjects entirely separable from the urge to gather up all the most dire and extreme speculation about what a warming earth would be like for humans and present it as scientific "truth."
And misrepresenting views is not seen as good journalism, but this person seems to want to do it.
Mr. Gore did not discover global warming and hasn't been a voice in the wilderness. Our political system has looked at the question closely, in a way Mr. Gore's film doesn't, and repeatedly concluded that the cost of action is greater than the known or surmised risks. That's all it can do. Thus the Senate and Presidents Clinton and Bush all made clear that they wouldn't sign up for a Kyoto gesture that imposes real costs with no real benefits.
Based in large part from ignoring the science.
This argument will come back again and again, as it must. As for the auteur, where many politicians seem like overhungry adolescents, Mr. Gore seems like a stifled 9-year-old--by turns spoiled and bullied, unwilling fully to meet expectations but unwilling also to take his own path. So what about gas prices? He needs to decide: Does he want to be a presidential contender or does he want to be the deliverer of "inconvenient truths" about climate change?
Ad hominem attacks? I guess that's what goes for responsible reporting/editorializing in the WSJ.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
The problem I have with Al Gore (and anyone from the last administration) on environmental issues, is that it has been reported that they overstated global warming as much as the current administration understates it.

I was reading an interview with a climate scientist that was working with the whitehouse who said that he was always being pressured to skew his findings, and make global warming a far bigger issue than it actually is.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
Tenchiro said:
The problem I have with Al Gore (and anyone from the last administration) on environmental issues, is that it has been reported that they overstated global warming as much as the current administration understates it.

I was reading an interview with a climate scientist that was working with the whitehouse who said that he was always being pressured to skew his findings, and make global warming a far bigger issue than it actually is.
Can we get a source on that? What motivation would they have for doing that when they didn't really follow through that much. They would have been setting themselves up as do-nothings in the face of serious threat.

Also, even if that is true, it doesn't change the scientific consensus and it doesn't make our current admin. any less culpable, nor does it make Gore's presentation invalid if he is (now) presenting the best science we have to date.

Note: I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know for sure that he is presenting the best science to date.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Old man,

Do you seriously think that BOTH sides are not using the issue to push their own agenda? How can you be surprised that the dems would overblow it? Neither side "cares"...
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
BurlyShirley said:
Old man,

Do you seriously think that BOTH sides are not using the issue to push their own agenda? How can you be surprised that the dems would overblow it? Neither side "cares"...
BOTH sides use many issues to push their agenda. I'm just wondering what agenda is served by overhyping GW. What would the previous admin. have gained from it?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Old Man G Funk said:
BOTH sides use many issues to push their agenda. I'm just wondering what agenda is served by overhyping GW. What would the previous admin. have gained from it?
You seriously need that explained? I mean, I can do it for you, but really? Do I have to?
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
BurlyShirley said:
You seriously need that explained? I mean, I can do it for you, but really? Do I have to?
Yeah. Explain. I don't remember doom and gloom forecasts coming from the government, so I'm not even sure that it happened, but we can still look at what they would have to gain by it.

It wouldn't be pandering to the environmentals, because they didn't do anything about it. In fact, it would make them look pretty stupid for having dire, end-of-the-world predictions and then just sitting there and doing nothing.

Was it to stick it to the oil companies? What do they gain by that, considering that the oil companies contribute to both parties? All they would be doing is making sure the oil company contributions go one way.

Was it to encourage alternative fuel? Maybe, but what do they gain from that?

Am I missing something obvious here?

(BTW, this is all side issue anyway. I just want to point that out before this devolves into a Clinton/Gore suxors discussion. If Gore is really presenting accurate stuff here, it doesn't matter what happened in the past.)
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
From Real Climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here).

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming". Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.

Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present -- rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here). However, I don't really agree with my colleagues' criticism on this point. Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes (as we have discussed here). In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate.

For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change. This is not entirely a scientific issue -- indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue -- but Gore draws heavily on Pacala and Socolow's recent work to show that the technology is there (see Science 305, p. 968 Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies).
It sounds like climate scientists agree that the movie is pretty accurate (with a few minor quibbles.)
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Well, in case you havent noticed how this partisan crap works, it really doesnt have anything to do with being factual. It has to do with painting the opposition as completely inadequate, incapable, evil and incompetent.
The dems get nowhere by saying "In 150 years, part of florida could be under water" but by saying "If we dont act now WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" they grab attention and paint the reps as non-caring environmental monsters.
You know how most people think. If it doesnt affect them, or wont for 100 years, they could care less. So the real question is.... What do the democrats have to gain from telling the truth?
Absolutely nothing. Hence the embellishment of it all. Ever see that stupid movie "The day after tomorrow"?
You dont think the timing of its release had to do with the presidential elections? Come on...
This isnt a matter of who is doing what right and what wrong, its a simple manipulation of facts in a power struggle.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
BurlyShirley said:
Well, in case you havent noticed how this partisan crap works, it really doesnt have anything to do with being factual. It has to do with painting the opposition as completely inadequate, incapable, evil and incompetent.
The dems get nowhere by saying "In 150 years, part of florida could be under water" but by saying "If we dont act now WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" they grab attention and paint the reps as non-caring environmental monsters.
You know how most people think. If it doesnt affect them, or wont for 100 years, they could care less. So the real question is.... What do the democrats have to gain from telling the truth?
Absolutely nothing. Hence the embellishment of it all. Ever see that stupid movie "The day after tomorrow"?
You dont think the timing of its release had to do with the presidential elections? Come on...
This isnt a matter of who is doing what right and what wrong, its a simple manipulation of facts in a power struggle.
So, what did they have to gain by doom and gloom forecasts and then doing nothing about it? Doesn't that open them up to charges of being do-nothings? I can see them trying to vilify the Reps. but that only works if the Reps. are saying, "I don't care about the science [cue maniacal laugh here.]"

Are you also trying to assert that Gore had something to do with the release of "The Day After Tomorrow"?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Old Man G Funk said:
So, what did they have to gain by doom and gloom forecasts and then doing nothing about it? Doesn't that open them up to charges of being do-nothings? I can see them trying to vilify the Reps. but that only works if the Reps. are saying, "I don't care about the science [cue maniacal laugh here.]"

Are you also trying to assert that Gore had something to do with the release of "The Day After Tomorrow"?
What do you mean doing nothing about it? They arent in power? What can they do? The point is to use the info to gain power.

And as for "the day after tomorrow" it may or may not have been gore or the dem. party specifically, but its purpose was to villify the current admin. Hell, they had a cheney look alike portraying the VP.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
BurlyShirley said:
What do you mean doing nothing about it? They arent in power? What can they do? The point is to use the info to gain power.
We were talking about the Clinton/Gore admin hyping GW. They were in power at the time. What would they gain by hyping it then doing nothing while being in position to do something about it?
And as for "the day after tomorrow" it may or may not have been gore or the dem. party specifically, but its purpose was to villify the current admin. Hell, they had a cheney look alike portraying the VP.
So, there's some conspiracy between Hollywood and the Dem. party (or Gore specifically) to discredit the current administration? Yeah, they (Hollywood) went overboard on the movie (I saw it on tv and it was a bunch of trash), but asserting some kind of collusion?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Old Man G Funk said:
We were talking about the Clinton/Gore admin hyping GW. They were in power at the time. What would they gain by hyping it then doing nothing while being in position to do something about it?
Who is this "we?"


So, there's some conspiracy between Hollywood and the Dem. party (or Gore specifically) to discredit the current administration? Yeah, they (Hollywood) went overboard on the movie (I saw it on tv and it was a bunch of trash), but asserting some kind of collusion?
Did you actually read what I said in my last post?
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
BurlyShirley said:
Who is this "we?"
Perhaps you should read comment #18?
Did you actually read what I said in my last post?
Yeah, I read it (as well as the one before it). You alluded to Gore and the Dem. party putting out the movie intentionally before the election in order to vilify the current admin. and score political points. I was under the impression that vapid Hollywood blockbusters came out in summer because they got their best movie sales from that time of year, but I'm sure that some producer on the movie somewhere hoped that people would come away with the idea that the Reps. are a bunch of monsters. You did imply that Gore and the Dem. party had something to do with it, however.
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,598
0
BurlyShirley said:
89% of critics hated "Mars Attacks" and that movie is awesome!
I concur, but Rotten Tomatoes is still a better authority on movies than N8.

Despite the fact you are an asshat ball fondler, it seems you have good taste in movies :oink:
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Old Man G Funk said:
The climate scientists at Real Climate disagree with you, as I've already pointed out.

I've read their points of view and conjecture...

so...

If we are to radically alter our current lifestyle then I think the Global Warming promoters have the burden of proof to support their allegations.

As it stands now, they (you) have not made the case in the court of science ergo all the disagreement on the issue.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
N8 said:
I've read their points of view and conjecture...
Somehow I doubt that.
If we are to radically alter our current lifestyle then I think the Global Warming promoters have the burden of proof to support their allegations.

As it stands now, they (you) have not made the case in the court of science ergo all the disagreement on the issue.
Check the peer-reviewed literature. Exxon and their paid hacks may disagree (and it's amazing how many contrarians are paid by oil companies, much like the tobacco companies and their scientists who assured us all - and still do - that cigarettes are completely harmless) but I'd rather trust the peer-reviewed literature. So, N8, stick your head in the sand all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Old Man G Funk said:
Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Completely unattributed with no peer-review to back anything up.

Bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I liked how they equated the greenhouse effect with having any atmosphere at all.

hey, u started it with your blog-o-site... :rofl: :rofl: