Gore a world-class snake-oil salesman
Al Gore awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? Please! Just what has he done to promote
world peace anyway? His so-called documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is
peppered with inaccuracies, according to experts on global warming, and the man
doesn't even practice what he preaches. According to The Associated Press, his
10,000-square-foot Belle Meade mansion consumes electricity at a rate 12 times
the average Nashville home. George Bush's Crawford Ranch, on the other hand,
incorporates every "green" feature that home construction can provide.
Furthermore, Al "Bore" flies a private jet that does more than four times the
carbon emission damage than a commercial jet. The man is a snake-oil salesman,
as are those responsible for giving him this award, too engrossed in their own
politics.
So who will the next Nobel recipient be? Michael Moore?
Richard Colwell, Parker
Another intelligent discussion of global warming? Sorry, just your average Republican moron attacking the man because he's too stupid to deal with the message.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 12:39 AMAnother intelligent discussion of global warming? Sorry, just your average Republican moron attacking the man because he's too stupid to deal with the message.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 12:39 AMAl Gore is absolutely worthy as a recipient; a wise choice. Even better, it makes the Right come unglued in righteous indignation. I always wondered where the black helicopter/ cattle mutilation crowd slithered off to; they went to ground as Republicans. Michael Moore next? Makes a lot of sense.
Posted by ronald on October 23, 2007 06:01 AMJust like a typical lemming the no name commentor reverts to name calling instead of addressing valid points made by Richard.
Point one ... Al Gore's home is not green friendly. Why not? Is Mr. no name saying that carbon offsets better then being energy efficent?
Point two .... Why does Al Gore fly privately. Is he to good to fly with ordinary people on public planes? Does he care that he pollutes more by flying private jet. Is there a carbon offset for his plane?
Point three .... How come we never hear about Bush's ranch. Is it really green friendly and if so should this not be promoted.
Just a few points from the letter that Mr. No name thinks is stupid and from uneducated Republicans.
Personally i think the stupid one is the ignorant commentor who failed to address these points.
Posted by JustAnotherOpinion on October 23, 2007 06:04 AMoh goodie the progressivies have something to dream about today. why not prove your statements instead of just attack anyone who questions algore?
him and his hollywood gruopies are above the rest of us to fly on a commercial jet so they all fly alone and buy carbon offsets because it feels good. no how long does it take those trees they talk about planting to really do anything? 15 years?
Another point is that Gore's company sells "Carbon Offsets" to these morons who follow him with their tongues wagging while Gore laughs all they way to the back, then climbs on his lear jet to one of his many homes. What chumps.
Posted by AnotherPoint on October 23, 2007 06:30 AMAnother case of sour grapes, open your mind a little and forget the guy is a democrat. The Novbel committe does not pick based on politiocs, heck they allowed Bush to be nominated which is what is really laughable. Imagine a man who attacks a country , starts a war that leads to hundreds iof thousands of deaths is nominiated for a 'Peace' prize!! lol. I say bring on Michael Moore, oops I forgot the consrrvatives oppose his politics so we better not.
Posted by Sour Grapes to Wine on October 23, 2007 06:52 AMThe far left authors Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St. Clair make it clear in "A Users Guide to Al Gore" that Al is no friend of the environment. He has long been in bed with big oil and has been responsible for massive strip mining & environmental damage. One of the greatest environmentalists, David Brower, stated that the Clinton/Gore administration was responsible for more environmental damage in their first 4 years than the Bush & Reagan administrations combined. Finally, NASA reports that global warming is happening on Mars. That little martian rover we sent there must really pump out the pollution.
Posted by j on October 23, 2007 07:00 AMPHONY AIRMAN/PHONY SOLDIER: Bush and Alito are both UCMJ-felons; AWOL, deserer, and guilty of illegal separation and discharge. When America called Gore to serve, he didn't place HER on ignore and call his rich daddy. Cong. Bush violated Truman's executive order which desegregated all of our military units. Geezer Bush resegregated all of our military units when he carved out a NAM sanctuary slot for "W" in the racially segregated Texas Air National Guard. Alito pimped and exploited taxpayers for 7 years of free college education (JD and undergrad degrees). He blwew off hsi 11 years of obligated military. Bad example for those CUS Republicans (Future Draft Dodgers of America-FDDA). Alito and Bush should both be in SuperMax or Ft. Leavenworth. I'll take Al any day over these two cowards, draft dodgers, wankers, and Hitler-types.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 23, 2007 07:25 AMwhy do people keep saying pollution is bad?
Posted by Little Timmy on October 23, 2007 07:25 AMGored again! BWA! HAAAAAAAAAA! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
Posted by junior on October 23, 2007 07:27 AMI agree whole heartedly with the letter writer. If Gore lives in a big house, surely global warming is not valid. What worries me though is the possibility of his moving into a smaller place. Let's all pray that he doesn't.
Posted by Truth on October 23, 2007 07:50 AMAl Gore is an idiot and George Bush is the genius. BWA! HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
This Al Gore guy has way too much power. Apparently he nows controls the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Center for Disease Control.
"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may be threatened as a species. The U.S. Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge. And President Bush called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront."
Posted by Truth on October 23, 2007 07:55 AMThis Al Gore guy has way too much power. It now looks like he has extended his power way beyond our borders to such unknown entities as Global Carbon Project, the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey.
"A weakening in the Earth's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere means that global warming is happening faster than we thought, scientists said yesterday.
Aircraft - If the oceans soak up less greenhouse gas there are fears climate change will worsen
If the oceans soak up less greenhouse gas there are fears climate change will worsen
Scientists thought that concentrations of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere would grow in line with the world economy.
The latest figures show, however, that over the past seven years CO2 concentrations have grown 35 per cent faster, partly because the ability of the Southern Ocean and other carbon "sinks" such as vegetation and forests to take it up has been reduced.
It is a development which has alarmed scientists from the Global Carbon Project, the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) who compared the period 1970-2000 with the past seven years."
Posted by Truth on October 23, 2007 07:59 AMDear God, where will it end. Gore has now gotten control of the Philippine government.
"Philippines: Sets Action Plan On Global Warming
Mike Cohen, Pacific News Center Correspondent 23.OCT.07
1:23 p.m. The Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC) has come up with the Philippines: Sets Action Plan On Global Warming
Mike Cohen, Pacific News Center Correspondent 23.OCT.07
1:23 p.m. The Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC) has come up with the Philippine Climate Change Response Action Plan (PCCRAP). The PCCRAP outlines various strategies on climate change and the role the Philippines will play to address climate change. The action plan was submitted to the President today in ceremonies marking the first-ever National Conference on Climate Change Adaptation. Climate Change Response Action Plan (PCCRAP). The PCCRAP outlines various strategies on climate change and the role the Philippines will play to address climate change. The action plan was submitted to the President today in ceremonies marking the first-ever National Conference on Climate Change Adaptation."
Even though he doesn't speak Chinese, this Gore fella apparently has infiltrated the Chinese government.
"China, soon to be the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, unveiled its first climate change initiative Tuesday.
According to state media, the National Climate Change Program plan calls for China to reduce energy use 20 percent by 2010, promote carbon sink technologies and other adaptive technologies, raise the efficiency of coal-fired power plants, and increase the amount of renewable energy it produces. "
Posted by Truth on October 23, 2007 08:10 AMIF HISTORT IS ANY GUIDE, AL GORE DESERVED THE NOBEL PRIZE--AND SO DID GLOBAL WARMING:
* In 2005, the prize went to Mohamed elBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for his efforts in discouraging nuclear proliferation. Evidently, the word hasn't reached Iran, North Korea, Syria, or Pakistan yet.
* In 2004, the winner was Wangari Maathai, for her efforts on behalf of "sustainable development, democracy, and peace", which appears to amount to planting trees in Kenya. Last year Prof. Maathai began a campaign against the menace of plastic bags. Good for her, I say.
* The 2003 winner was Shirin Ebadi, "for her efforts for democracy and human rights". Everywhere but her home country of Iran. She'll get around to it eventually, though.
* For 2002, it was our own Jimmy Carter, for peace, democracy, human rights, and I don't know what all. Two weeks ago, Jimmy was given the bum's rush by a pack of Sudanese security thugs. I guess they hadn't heard about his Nobel.
* The 2001 prize went to Kofi Annan. Kofi has more or less dropped out of sight after leaving the UN. I wonder why?
* In 1997, it was Jody Williams of the International Campaign to ban Landmines. Haven't heard of them recently either. Did they dig ‘em all up?
* And in 1988, the nod went to the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. You didn't know there was a Nobel for well-run whorehouses, did you?
It's clear from this list that not a single cause has prospered recently since the major figure involved won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's hope its also over for the 2 biggest hoaxs of the century--GLOBAL WARMING AND AL GORE!
Posted by Hank on October 23, 2007 08:10 AMEVERYONE OPEN YOUR DOORS AND WINDOWS, TURN ON YOUR AIR CONDITIONERS TO FULL BLAST. WE MUST STOP GLOBAL WARMING NOW!
Posted by on October 23, 2007 08:16 AMIf you don't like the message...kill the messenger.
Posted by Far Right Wingnut on October 23, 2007 08:21 AMThe global warming thesis received several body blows this year not yet adequately aired by the legacy media. The first is the NASA data glitch, a software failure that kicked all temperature records up several tenths of a degree. It turns out that George Soros bribed NASA's chief data guru, Hansen, to cook the books, The second is the investigation of automated weather stations by meteorologist Anthony Watts, who discovered that a large fraction of the nation's 1,200 stations have been mis-sited:...
"...on rooftops, at sewage treatment plants, over concrete, next to air conditioners, next to diesel generators, with nearby parking, excessive nighttime humidity, and at non-standard observing heights"
-- not to mention the one sinking into a swamp. Taken alone, either of these developments is damning. Taken together, they demolish the very basis of the warming argument. Warming was postulated from long-term changes in basic temperature data. What happens when that data has to be thrown out? Quite simply, the entire thesis must be reworked from the ground up. And until it is, all conclusions about warming, climate change, or anything comparable get put on hold. Until then, moreover, the whole global warming proposition is nothing but intellectual sasquatch.
When did man become so power full to do this damge. What started the 1st ice age and end it , how did we start the 2nd in the mid 13th century and end it only about 150 years ago. The earth has cycles where it is hot for a while then turns cold ever think about that.
Posted by brad on October 23, 2007 08:44 AMWhere are the great hurricanes again this year? I thought they were going to be more numerous and more destructive this year than in any past?
Oh, and do not point out the California wildfires as proof of GW- every October and November they have them along with the Santa Ana's, look back through history, the only difference now - more people live where they burn. These are also man made whether intentionally set or via downed power lines or work crews.
When did man become so power full to do this damge. What started the 1st ice age and end it , how did we start the 2nd in the mid 13th century and end it only about 150 years ago. The earth has cycles where it is hot for a while then turns cold ever think about that.
Posted by brad on October 23, 2007 08:45 AMLet's hope its also over for the 2 biggest hoaxs of the century--GLOBAL WARMING AND AL GORE!
Posted by Hank
Gee Hank I think you are maybe the only person who doesn't see the War in Iraq and the WMD's that weren't there as the biggest hoax in the last century. You are such a right wing tool that you can't even think logically. I am really beginning to feel sorry for you. You have to be the biggest idiot in any blog out there.
Posted by It's True on October 23, 2007 08:58 AM12:39 and the other village idiots get taken advantage of again by this liar.
Posted by Keith on October 23, 2007 09:10 AMRight, Hank is the biggest liar of them all, and Keith is the king of the village idiots.
Posted by Keeeefffffff on October 23, 2007 09:36 AMCan I ask a question?
Among the global warming Deniers here...honestly now....who believes in creationism? Anyone believe that adult stem cells behave exactly the same or provide the same scientific benefits as embryonic stem cells? Who among the Deniers believe that abstinence-only sex ed is a success? Who among you believes in an omnipresent sky daddy living in the clouds with which your ghost will pary for eternity upon your death?
Anyone?
Wow, look at all the environmental experts around here. They read a few news articles, or watch a little TV, and suddenly they're regular PhD's in climatology. Then of course, they have to insult and tear apart anyone who disagrees with their “enlightened” opinion.
The history of the world is a history of climate change, a history of warming and cooling. Ice ages come, and ice ages go. Maybe humans are responsible for global warming this time, maybe not. But the jury is definitely still out on that one
But hey, if some of you want to worship at the altar of man-made global warming and zealously take it as gospel, go for it.
now believing the science is being compared to "worship"?
sounds like the last act of a desperate parisan
Posted by on October 23, 2007 10:40 AM"When did man become so power full to do this damge."
Brad may have a point: how powerful can man be when he can't even spell or punctuate a sentence any better than that? You start crediting man for the ability to alter the atmosphere (does the term "atom bomb" have any meaning here?), next you'll start to believe man is capable of landing on the moon or bouncing information off satellites in outer space or even flying across the ocean in aeroplanes.
And if climate is all a matter of cycles (just sit back and be patient, folks, and in another 5000 years or so we'll be back to normal), does that mean the hole in the ozone layer that lets in all those lovely UV rays similarly comes and goes in regular intervals?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 23, 2007 10:43 AMJay you have blinded me by science.
Posted by Thomas Dolby on October 23, 2007 10:53 AMjay,
The real question should be, who denies the globe is warming?
Is earth warming? Yes. So is Mars. To what degree are we the cause? No one truly knows. Will the oceans rise 20 feet or two inches? Many folks doubt Mr. Gore's prediction. Is this warming just a natural phase? It could be. Is warming necessarily a bad thing? No. Has the ice been melting for thousands of years? Yes. Is Mr. Gore a big hypocrite? Yes.
Is the world getting warmer? sure. It is supposed to be about 1 degree warmer over the next cycle. Now... What is the correct temperature set for the planet? the one we are in now? 10 yrs ago? 100? What is the Ideal temp? during all these warming and cooling cycles, what is the correct temp for the planet? Was the correct temp when ice covered North America? Why weren't the Wooly Mammoths complaining that they were causing GW then?
Now, the GW debate revolves around what causes this change. Is it human involvement? Possibly. Is it the sun, tides, forestation, volcanoes, termites and cow flatulence? Could be. With a system so dynamic, there simply isn't a computer out there that could actually compute it in any meaningful way. Each system is set with a chain of parameters based on someone's best guess and the numbers are crunched. This is a guess... at best.
Considering there is warming on Mars, my bet is that Man made GW is far from the ogre it is made out to be, but a small part of the whole pie. Considering the wide ranges of temperature changes from night to day around the world, the sun has a far greater effect on the temp than mankind.
As to Al Gore getting the NPP. Are you surprised? This is a far left organization and they have their own agenda. Al Gore is a part of it. Who cares?
As his own actions are far from "Green", the hypocrisy of this clown just brings to light the folly of listening to anything he has to say. So, I don't.
Posted by Dravur on October 23, 2007 11:03 AM"now believing the science is being compared to "worship"?"
This one has to take the cake of the day. If you want to post your address, I'll mail you a dictionary, and perhaps you'll be able to see the humor of that statement.
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 11:03 AM"Many folks doubt Mr. Gore's predictions"
AGAIN folks...this isn't Gore's work...it's nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist's conclusion on the planet...Gore is just the messenger.
I would have thought that would have sunk in by now.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 11:04 AMGORE IS A MODERN DAY ELMER GANTRY
Al Gore is playing has the best role of his deceptive and deceiptful career. He is a gifted hustler and flm/flam artist who finds himself in a profession for which he is a perfect fit--selling snake oil. As an environmental evangelist, Gore like Gantry, shows that he understands gullible and naive people and is easily able to manipulate his devout desciples who buy his indulgences in the form of "carbon credits." Gore is the self-appointed Pope of Global Warming, a genuine Mr. "Feel-good" who peddles "feel good." Gore, like Gantry, is living large and riding to the bank on the backs of his followers, most of whom are intellectually more than a few french fries short of a Happy Meal.
Posted by Hank on October 23, 2007 11:08 AM
jay,
Among the global warming Deniers here...honestly now....who believes in creationism?
Anyone?
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 10:28 AM
I don't know about gobal warming denial but Darwin believed in creationism.
Read the last paragraph in "Origin of Species."
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 11:18 AMI have read the entire book James. Unfortunately many fundamentalists have furthered the myth that chuck was a believer in creationism. While it is true that he was a religious man he did not believe in the literal translation of the old testament.
Nice try though...an oldy but a goldey
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 11:24 AMI suspect that the Gore-haters pooh-pooh global warming since they think it's not their problem (intellectual giants like Hank & Keith). After all, the righteous wingnuts are all going to be "raptured" up to the clouds by an avenging spirit who is going to commit genocide on the rest of us. So who cares what happens to the planet where we all live?
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 11:28 AMjay,
May be time for another read you seem to have forgotten one or two thigs. This is in the concluding paragraph,
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. "
I have no doubt Darwin did not believe in a literal translation of the Old Testament.
But Darwin did believe that life was originally breathed into a few forms or one.
That sounds a bit like Genesis come to think of it.
A lot fo the golden oldies turn out to be true don't you find?
Jay wrote: “AGAIN folks...this isn't Gore's work...it's nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist's conclusion on the planet...Gore is just the messenger.”
If it wasn’t Gore’s work then why did he get the credit for helping the cause of peace by getting the Nobel Peace Prize?
Look much closer, Jay. Much of what Gore says in his film is nothing close to reality. For example, as you probably know he makes the claim that the oceans will rise by as much as 20 feet. Please show me a so-called “peer review” that reaches the same ridiculous conclusion.
Additionally, I realize it’s a popular belief that “nearly every single peer review” agrees that man either causes or contributes to global climate changes. But it’s just that – a popular belief. There are several “peer reviews” produced by scientists that completely contradict what the “believers” say.
The UN’s IPCC consists of around 2,000 people. That is hardly a consensus of the world’s scientists. There is a petition signed by over 17,000 scientists who state that the Kyoto Accord is a bunch of bunk.
Posted by Mountain Cat on October 23, 2007 11:58 AMGORE JOINS EXCLUSIVE AND GOREY NOBEL CLUB:
Dr. Egas Moniz of Portugal was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1949 for his development of frontal lobotomy. The renown given by this award popularized and accelerated this torturous procedure that left the patient in a zombie-like and vegitative condition. This Gorey procedure was largely rejected by the entire medical profession within a few short years of being so highly prized. I expect Al Gore to enjoy the same staying power.
Posted by Hank on October 23, 2007 12:00 PMRight-wing asswipes are the lowest form of life on earth.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 12:36 PMJames the fundamentalists have been grasping to that leap of faith for years...against the testimony of Charles and his family. The rumors of a death bed reconversion to christianity are also false by the way.
Now....you provide a great example of the point I was going to make should someone actually answer any of my questions.
You folks would take a blind leap of faith on any number of issues without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up...but will completely disregard vast scientific consensus, data and peer-reviewed conclusions when such acknowledgement is politically or theologically inconvenient.
That practice is a great example of latent hypocrisy at best and willfull ignorance at worst.
Which is it in your case?
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 12:48 PMMountain Cat:
Look much closer, Jay. Much of what Gore says in his film is nothing close to reality. For example, as you probably know he makes the claim that the oceans will rise by as much as 20 feet. Please show me a so-called “peer review” that reaches the same ridiculous conclusion.
How about the USGS:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Under "Table 1. Estimated potential maximum sea-level rise from the total melting of present-day glaciers" they list a potential sea level rise of 6.55 meters if all the Greenland ice melted.
People seem to get incredulous about the "20 foot claim" because of confusion between what some are predicting in the next 100 years and what would happen if all the ice on Greenland melted. That sea levels would rise 20 feet if all of Greenland's ice melted is well established, but, to the best of my knowledge, no credible scientist is predicting that all of Greenland's ice will melt in 100 years.
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 12:51 PMsomebody forgot to give the Governator his GOP talking points.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/02/tech/main699281.shtml
jay,
I said nothing in the first place about literal readings of the Old Testament or in the second case about death bed conversions.
What I have done is reproduce the Darwin's text and the plain meaning. If you want to make the case that Darwin didn't really mean what he wrote then you need produce the evidence.
He may have changed his mind about the beginning of life as he aged - I'm willing to look at the evidence. I see no reason to accept your assertions as authoritative.
Now as to your question - you leave me the option choosing between being either a hypocrite or ignorant. I suppose a person could be both but in fact I am neither.
I do understand the difference between faith and knowledge; science and religion. I have seen no evidence that you do.
You need to produce some evidence to back up your assertions as regards either Darwin or me.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 01:33 PMLets get drew and Gore their own planet so they can have intellectually stimulating conversations on and a little "Rapture" of their own if you know what I mean.
Just don't make pooh-pooh all over the place.
If you do make sure you took a pooh-pooh scooper with you.
JJ:
Who cares what Darwin believed? What do todays scientists say?
You're hilarious in the same way that the Keystone Cops are hilarious..
Posted by Charles B. on October 23, 2007 01:39 PMJames you deny that Darwin made the case throughout his life that he had abandoned his christian-based belief in creationism? No offense...but if you're not aware of even that much about Darwin...then I'm certainly going to have to charge you for the tutoring.
But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
May I recommend Hitchen's The God Delusion?
You might find it very enlightening.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 01:45 PMJay,
I believe "the God Delusion" was by Richard Dawkins - Hitchins wrote "God is Not Great." But either book would be enlightening for JJ. As would anything by Sam Harris especially "Letter to a Christian Nation."
But, as you're no doubt aware, Christians aren't very inquisitive about the world (just look at the intellectual capacity of W Bush) - since they're terrified of anything that would burst their comforting little bubble of superstition & dogma. Just look how they fight tooth & nail against science in general - & evolution in particular. Quite sad, actually.
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 02:06 PMJay,
You make the false assumption that everybody who is not on the band wagon about global warming is also a religious fanatic. You might want to stop jumping to such a conclusion.
You might also recognize that there are a considerable number of respected scientists who do not go along with your beliefs concerning the causes of climate change. As I stated in my last post, there is a group of over 17,000 scientists who do not agree with Kyoto, the IPCC or with Al Gore.
The high praise placed upon the IPCC is based upon the notion that the IPCC is made up of scientists when in fact it is a panel of government officials who have manipulated the summaries of climate experts to fit their wish of a political outcome. The IPCC received a summary from their chosen group of scientists in December 2006, but did not release their report about the summary until May 2007. Hmmm…why the long wait?
This is not all about saving the planet from mankind. It’s far, far more political than most people realize. I know that is hard to swallow when all you hear is how bad humans are for the environment, when “even George Bush” makes comments referring to our “need” to solve the climate “problem”, or when “somebody forgot to give the Governator his GOP talking points”. But that is only happening because at this stage in our history it is a group of loud-mouthed environmentalists who are controlling the argument and anything presented by the other side is considered to be along the lines of flat-world thinking.
I’ve looked at both sides of the issue and every time I do, it is the level-headedness of those who state that climates change with or without our involvement which makes the most common sense. The side which blames humans for climate changes is using hysteria to force an agenda that gullible people have bought in to.
The area in which Colorado sits was once a lush rain forest. Climates DO change! Nobody can argue about that. To believe that the climate we have grown accustomed to is the same as what nature has in mind is rich in naiveté. To believe that humans can change climate is rich in arrogance and it’s narcissistic to believe that we need to in order that it meet our accustomed level of comfort.
Posted by Mountain Cat on October 23, 2007 02:47 PMjay,
And that makes three. I have said nothing about literal translation, death bed conversions or abandoning Christian (or Jewish) beliefs.
For a man devoted to science you see reluctant to offer any evidence of anything you think. You're pretty dogmatic as a matter of fact.
There can be no charge for where there is no lesson.
I have great respect for Hitchens, less so for Dawkins and little to none for Harris.
Hitchens is a genuine atheist with the courage of his convictions. The other two argue for that comfortable atheism prevalent on this page that does not go all the way down.
They want the design because they find an irrational world ruled by chance and natural selection unsettling. But they don't want the designer because that would suggest they are accountable to something beyond the dictates of their own conscience.
This is a type of atheism that is more interested in comfort than truth. Their work is useful to dogmatic leftists that frequents this page.
They can knowingly refer to the authors for the purpose of insulting the religious without going to the fuss and bother of actually reading their books.
Hitchens on the other hand challenges the believer and that is a great benefit.
Since you are unfamiliar with title I imagine you are also unfamiliar with this work as you are with Origin of Species.
Drew got the title right but mispelled the author's name.
But if I combine the two of you we do get something right.
Mountain Cat:
As I stated in my last post, there is a group of over 17,000 scientists who do not agree with Kyoto, the IPCC or with Al Gore.
Is that the list from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? The one that had characters from M*A*S*H in the list?
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 03:14 PMExcellent comments Mountain Cat and Mr. Jones.
In regards to jay, I should warn you that he is not interested in an honest debate. He refuses to acknowledge any counterpoints. He accepts any "study" or organization that seems to agree with his ideology.
Here's an example: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/10/health_care_cost_concerns.html#comments
Scroll down to the bottom to see how he avoids questions. He posts faulty studies and says "data is data." He even refuses to acknowledge any counterpoints that he deems as a "right wing talking point".
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 03:17 PMJohn II
Thanks for the heads up. I can see that jay is not a walker of the walk?
I've already learned that Drew is a moral degenerate.
So - off to more productive purusits.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 03:26 PMJJ,
"The other two argue for that comfortable atheism prevalent on this page that does not go all the way down..."
What exactly does that mean, JJ?
And you say: "Hitchens on the other hand challenges the believer and that is a great benefit." So you don't find Dawkins challenging? Or maybe you just find him scary? Makes me think JJ that you're the one who hasn't read the books in question.
Dawkins is one the the world's most prominent scientists and brilliant man - with talent & smarts that he uses to make skillful, scientific arguments. Hitchens (yes i misspelled his name) is a smart guy - but he's a journalist, not one of the world's greatest intellects. I applaud you if you've read these 3 authors JJ, but I doubt it.
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 03:35 PM"moral degenerate" - that's funny, JJ. Frankly, I've never resorted to name calling with you, but if that's the way you want it, OK, guess the gloves are off. You guys on the right always end up looking more or less like Keith in the end.
"Scroll down to the bottom to see how he avoids questions. He posts faulty studies and says "data is data." He even refuses to acknowledge any counterpoints that he deems as a "right wing talking point"."
Still waiting for you to refute any of the number of studies and reports I used to make my case John...and until you do...the point is conceded in my favor.
Stop pouting.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 03:43 PMJJ,
One last thing:
"Drew got the title right but mispelled the author's name."
FYI: misspelled is spelled M-I-S-S-P-E-L-L-E-D. I can nitpick with the best of them. Guess more than just two of you wingnuts are going to have to combine to get something right.
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 03:46 PMOK James...thanks for acknowledging that Darwin did indeed go out of his way during his life to make his case that he had abandoned his childhood, christian-based beliefs on creationism...making your point invalid...regardless of the paragraph you referenced in Species...a paragraph whose use has been an inadequate tool of the religious right for decades. Upon it alone, one could even come to the conclusion you are right...but unfortunately, Darwin himself left little doubt that you are sorely mistaken...but I imagine you knew that before trying to obsfucate the original point.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 03:48 PMLooks like drew found some stimulating intellectual conversation with someone he fondly calls JJ. Does Big Al Gore know?
What blatant infidelity!! Aah! Atheist Love,
How sweet.
Drew, Gore and JJ definitely got something "Left" and oh so wrong!
drew is such a good speller and proof reader.
Too bad he doen't "Truth" proof read his comments.
Conservatives are the most hateful "people".
Hey anonymous wingnut! You're the sweet one - sounds like you're in the same IQ range as Keith & Un-American - you must be very proud! And anonymous, of course - too cowardly to even sign their letters - little wonder they're too scared to go to Iraq! What a wanker.
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 04:49 PMHey anonymous - just thought of something for you - just sign your name as "wishy washy wingnut wanker." That's got a nice ring. Are you embarrassed that people can tell you're a moron after you write just 3 sentences? Just wondering.
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 04:57 PMJames Jones:
Hitchens is a genuine atheist with the courage of his convictions. The other two [Dawkins & Harris] argue for that comfortable atheism prevalent on this page that does not go all the way down.They want the design because they find an irrational world ruled by chance and natural selection unsettling. But they don't want the designer because that would suggest they are accountable to something beyond the dictates of their own conscience
And this is simply conjecture on your part , you have no way of knowing what they "want", you're just applying some preconvieved template on them.
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 05:27 PMJJ said:
"I have great respect for Hitchens, less so for Dawkins and little to none for Harris."
Funny, because if you read God is not Great, you would realize that the respect doesn't cut both ways.
Hitchens is a great writer, and his book was entertaining, but he's not in the same league as the other two regarding the depth of his arguments.
I seriously doubt you've read the books.
Posted by Charles B. on October 23, 2007 07:02 PMChuckels The Clown,
I dont believe anyone rattled their zipper so
shut your greasy hole.
jay,
If you read the text I quoted from Darwin you will see that there is no mention of any religion at all much less Chrisianity. If you read my posts you see the same thing.
So your comment:
"thanks for acknowledging that Darwin did indeed go out of his way during his life to make his case that he had abandoned his childhood, christian-based beliefs on creationism..."
ir irrational because there is no context. Neither Darwin, nor I, had made any reference to any religion.
I may be able to help you with this.
In your way of thinking anyone who states a belief in a Creator is also religious. And, of course in the US, most people who are religious are Christians.
Therefore you assume that anyone who asserts a belief in a Creator must also be Christian. But it isn't true.
Jefferson and Einstein, for instance, both believed in a Creator but neither was religious or, obviously, Christian.
So if you started to think critically about the actual arguments made within the context of the principles and ignore your pre-conceived notions, then you might be able to break the bonds of your leftist dogmatism.
And if you break those bonds you might be able to express yourself with assertions that go beyond platitudes.
Give it a try - Small steps can lead to great results.
CL,
Well of course if you're going to tell me, as jay does, that the author does not acutally believe what he wrote then of course there is no way to no what he wants.
But if the you think the author means what he writes, and I do, then what's the point of reading if you're not going to conjecture about the meaning?
What pre-conceived template have I applied to Dawkins or Harris?
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 09:03 PMJames Jones is beyond moral degeneracy into pure impotent evil in the filthiest church on the planet. Up him and all he stand for.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 09:25 PMpure impotent evil?
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 09:43 PMI think someone named Brad asked about Ice Ages and Mars.
What we refer to the Ice Age started roughly 100 thousand years ago. There were glaciers before that but not in the warming, cooling sequence of the Pleistocene, which is easy to remember because there is "ice" in the word. Pronounce it, see. That`s a very helpful mnemonic.
Mars does not have an atmosphere, so why is it heating up? Haven`t looked into the Mars question.
The plane of the Solar System changes every 65 million years, with smaller changes more often. That alone can heat up planets.
As to creationism and the different forms of atheism, Einstein liked the idea of a disinterested creator. That makes sense. A God with emotions would go nuts.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 23, 2007 10:16 PM" If you dont like the messeger, kill the message"...words the consrervative right lives by
Posted by on October 24, 2007 07:11 AMJames, for the record....are you denying that Darwin and his family went out of his way to clear up any doubt that he had renounced his childhood, christian-based beliefs in creationism?
Yes or no will suffice.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 10:00 AMLots on here from Drewl, but none of his typical accusations of racism on the letter
of Oct 22. from Anthony Garcia. Why the silence on that thread, Drewl?
No.
Acutally I am usually allowed more than one word.
Near the end of life Darwin described himself as agnostic.
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 10:22 AMAl Gore is a true Democrat idiot just like the Democrats posting on this page.He lost a least 5 states in his bid to become President because of his push for more gun control.Bill Clinton wrote in his book that he lost the House and Senate in 1994 because he pushed through the Brady bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.You would think that a smart person would have learned from Bill Clinton's mistake after all Gore was the VP.This is the guy that Democrats and all the world liberals look up to? This just shows how stupid Democrats really are and if it wasn't for the liberal media brainwashing the American public everyone would see the Democrats for what they are "idiots".
Posted by An American on October 24, 2007 10:41 AMGuns for everyone! Bazookas for the populice! Grenades and AK-47 for the masses!!!!!! I pledge allegience to the 2nd amendment of America and to the republicans for which it stands! God damn anyone who opposes us!!!! Long live those with guns and death to those wothout!!!!
Posted by An American on October 24, 2007 10:51 AMThere you go James...glad we cleared that up.
Now back to that whole inconsistency thing.
I find the inconsistency of the religious right to be a curious thing. They will take complete leaps of faith on nothing more than 2000 year old anedotal evidence, but simply refuse to acknowledge credible data and broad scientific consensus on any number of politically or theologically inconvenient issues.
I just don't understand the hypocrisy.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 11:23 AMjay,
You haven't described any hypocrisy. You have described inconsistency and that is a common human failing.
It seems to me that your standards miss the mark. There is a marked difference between faith and knowledge; religion (or Deism) and science. The two have different roles.
Faith, or the ability to accept a mystery, is required of the religious based on the understanding the God's thoughts can never be the believer's thoughts. Therefore study of religioius (and historical) evidence is required to determine God's will. That is a human endeavor that has resulted in the development of numerous theologies which range over having a lot in common to having practically nothing in common at all.
The scientist, on the other hand, bases conclusions on the observation and measurement of natural phenomen. In order to develop data, the scientist must know that there are laws of nature that are predictable - not interfered with by supernatual forces.
That is different from saying that God doesn't exist and in fact there are many (a consensus?) who do believe.
You assert there is a consensus on global warming. For me that is an overly broad characterization.
I don't think anyone argues that global conditions are static. That means the earth will always be either warming or cooling.
It appears that we are currently warming and it appears that man has some influence on global weather.
Beyond that, I don't think there is a broad consensus on much. But even if there were: a) a consensus means there is some dissent and b) we know from history that the scientific is always incorrect to some extent - that is, we never reach the scientific condition that all is known.
Many scientific advances have been made throughout history by scientists who thougth outside the current consensus.
So a Fundamentalist Baptist Christian or an atheist may either join or reject this scientific consensus you refer to - there is no nexus between the religious belief and science in this sense.
I think what you are probably seeing is that political leftists, who tend not to be religious, as a group are overwhemingly represented in the consensus while the political right, who tend to be religious, are overwhelmingly represented in the dissenters.
But not only is there no hypocrisy involved; there is no inconsistency. In fact that result was predictable at the ouset.
Hey RickyLee JimBob
That's funny - you call me Drewl - just like Keith - guess you & him have a lot in common. Love that Longmont country humor!
I never commented on that letter since:
1) i never read it
2) Mr Garcia's opinions are just fine (now that I HAVE read it).
The only time I've cried "racism" on this forum is when your 'ol pal Keith made racist comments about black people in New Orleans. See Jim Bob - I don't get hysterical about immigration issues - I'll leave that to you & your buddy Tancredo.
But since you think you know me so well, why don't you just post for me & sign my name - your buddies do it all the time.
But thats all from me JimBob, now you can carry on ranting about Messicans & Boulderites.
Posted by drew on October 24, 2007 01:06 PMJJ both said the following:
So a Fundamentalist Baptist Christian or an atheist may either join or reject this scientific consensus you refer to - there is no nexus between the religious belief and science in this sense.
and then proved himself wrong:
I think what you are probably seeing is that political leftists, who tend not to be religious, as a group are overwhemingly represented in the consensus while the political right, who tend to be religious, are overwhelmingly represented in the dissenters.
Get yourself sorted out, son.
Posted by Charles B. on October 24, 2007 01:30 PMCharles B,
You are confused because you don't understand the phrase "in this sense" at the end of the first sentence.
See what that means is that it is not axiomatic (look it up) that the religious be a dissenter of an atheist be a member of the consensus.
That fact, however, does not rule out identifiable trends.
Don't respond if you understand the above. Just bang you head on your keyboard three times.
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 02:04 PM
make "dissenter of an"
"dissenter or an"
Sorry Charles. The last thing I intend is to confuse you further.
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 02:07 PMCharles B.,
Mr. Jones did not prove himself wrong. He was pointing out the characteristics of two political ideologies.
We could make weak assertions based on other irrelevant criteria as well. For example, we could say that gay marriage supporters are more likely to accept without question the dire consequences of global warming. Or, since young women tend to identify themselves as liberals, we could say there is something about being a woman that affects the belief in global warming doomsday scenarios. Perhaps, being black determine whether or not one accepts that global warming is largely th result of man. Or, we could say that since most conservatives value state's rights over a powerful federal government, that determines their stance on global warming.
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 02:17 PM"Faith, or the ability to accept a mystery, is required of the religious based on the understanding the God's thoughts can never be the believer's thoughts."
Not so much. Faith is REQUIRED of a religion because of the lack of substantiated information at its bedrock.
"You assert there is a consensus on global warming. For me that is an overly broad characterization."
I'll ask another simple yes or no question. Ddo you deny that there is scentific consensus from the peer-reviewed, field-appropriate sceintific community about global warming (particularly that man is adversely affecting our current warming trend)?
This isn't a complicated question....so again...yes or no will suffice.
"a consensus means there is some dissent"
There is dissent....but by no means does this mean there is a credible debate.
"we know from history that the scientific is always incorrect to some extent - that is, we never reach the scientific condition that all is known."
Not so much. We don't have to know all the secrets of the universe to have a credible, valid scientfic conclusion that is widely supported on GW.
"here is no nexus between the religious belief and science in this sense."
Glad you brought this up because this is my point and the genesis of your confusion.
There IS a connection between far right religious fundamentalism and the lack of support for the science on issues like GW, stem cell research, etc.
That's the point. On the one hand these folks willfully suspend all criteria for substantiation of information when it comes to their religious beliefs...but refuse to acknowledge the widely substantiated information in regards to politically and theologically inconvenient issues.
Therein lies the consistent hypocrisy...or if you like...the hypocritical inconsistency.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 02:26 PMjay,
Let me see if I understand you position.
Science knows everything that is necessary to know.
Once a consensus is formed, there is no doubt about the scientific conditions.
Therefore we should employ the scientific methods as instructed by the consensus to reduce the threat of Global Warming irrespective of the cost to our freeedom or our wealth.
Just a simple yes or no will suffice.
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 03:07 PMJames Jones:
But if the you think the author means what he writes, and I do, then what's the point of reading if you're not going to conjecture about the meaning?
And that's just what I said - it was conjecture (which you stated as fact).
Besides, that, I've read some Dawkin's and heard him in a debate on the radio a week or two ago arguing that there was no need for a creator, contrary to what you claim he writes. You obviously aren't convinced by his arguments, but you commit a fallacy in assuming that because you aren't convinced by his arguments the he must not be either.
What pre-conceived template have I applied to Dawkins or Harris?
In a nutshell, that they are really "unsettled" with their atheism, and you proceed from there
Posted by CL on October 24, 2007 03:26 PM"Therefore we should employ the scientific methods as instructed by the consensus to reduce the threat of Global Warming irrespective of the cost to our freeedom or our wealth"
James you were doing so good until you spouted this strawman argument.
I believe that we should do what we can to reduce man's impact on global warming without nuking our economy.
I just don't see why such a stance is so controversial to those on the far right.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 03:32 PMjay,
The strawman Mr. Jones presented was an intentional mimic of your tendency for false dilemmas and strawman tactics.
jay said:
"I believe that we should do what we can to reduce man's impact on global warming without nuking our economy."
That puts you in agreement with everyone on this thread.
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 03:40 PMGreat to hear you're no longer among The Deniers John.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 03:41 PMI never was a denier, jay.
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 03:45 PMjay,
What would you consider a "nuking" of our economy? What would you sacrifice to reduce man's impact on global warming?
Would an increase in unemployment be acceptable to you?
Would you accept a reduction in our food output?
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 03:50 PMWhere are you getting these chicken little examples John?
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 04:05 PMjay,
Could you clarify your last post?
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 05:14 PMjay,
I was never able to fool John II. Let me see now- was it Coloradan or Coloradoan?
Seems I've forgotten.
Yes - I offered a staw man argument and then told you that a yes or no answer was sufficient.
Very percepetive. I'm quite certain you would never do anything so unfair - right?
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 06:21 PMJames...it's a common tactic when cornered. If you'll look closely you'll notice that my questions never qualified as such.
It doesn't make you a bad person.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 10:26 PMjay? I'm noticing a pattern here.
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 10:28 PMGlobal warming is a faith based proposal. Like the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages the "Pope", Al Gore, proclaims the dogma and declares some actions to be sinful (wrong). Those with the ability to pay may buy indulgences, carbon credits. and bypass the negative consequences of their actions.
Major difference is that religions are forbidden, by law, the ability to make laws based on their beliefs to punish the non-believers. They are also not permitted to change the direction and guidelines of entire countries based on their faith which they claim is backed up by their studies and scholars. Global warming pundits demand that all obey their rules and that we impose more and more restrictions on all peoples to satisfy their controversial assertions that global warming is caused by man and can be undone by drastically reducing the lifestyles and freedoms of entire countries.
Not to say that some religions wouldn't want to do this, but they cannot do it. Perhaps we can just use common sense and reduce pollution and waste but discard the extreme measures until the computer models are more accurate and the data more scientific and less political.
Posted by momma y on October 25, 2007 02:02 AMjay,,
Sure you do. I have looked closely and you do it all the time. Here's one
I'll ask another simple yes or no question. Ddo you deny that there is scentific consensus from the peer-reviewed, field-appropriate sceintific community about global warming (particularly that man is adversely affecting our current warming trend)?
This isn't a complicated question....so again...yes or no will suffice.
It is obvious that man's activities impact climate but that evades two important questions. First, is the impact significant? Second, is it adverse?
All of this is based on your false premise that a consensus in science is compelling. That has never been the case.
The science in this case is not sufficiently compelling to undertake the sort of dramatic programs envisioned by, for instance, Kyoto.
You get around that point by ignoring it.
Speaking of which - The pattern John II is referring to is your habit of avoiding a central question by changing the subject.
John asked a) what specifically you would consider "nuking" the economy? and b) for the source of your Chicken Little examples.
You have ignored both those also.
That's a sort of reerse Straw Man technique.
Posted by James Jones on October 25, 2007 06:58 AMGlobal warming is a lie! Gravity is a lie! The earth is flat. The sun revolves around the earth. I know all I see all.
Posted by GOP Thinker on October 25, 2007 07:00 AMJJ is confused:
He demands overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence before he will believe that the effects of man-induced global warming are adverse, yet he needs not a shred of evidence to believe the wholesale balderdash written in his favored book of mythology.
Get your head on straight man!
Posted by Charles B. on October 25, 2007 12:34 PMCharles B.,
If Mr. Jones is willing to accept the Christianity you call a "wholesale balderdash", he only affects himself; it's a personal decision.
But, if he were to back, let's say, the Kyoto agreement based on incomplete data, he would be affecting millions of people's livelihood.
The main point that is constantly glossed over by the left here is not if we should respond to global warming, but how much should we respond.
Posted by John II on October 25, 2007 01:02 PMCharels B,
I don't required overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence to be persuaded of anything and have posted nothing a that would lead a reasonable man to that conlusion.
If you think I have - then produce the post.
If you think there is a threat, identify it - just telling me the climate is changing is not sufficient.
If there is some policy you want to put in place to offset what you think is a threat, tell me what it is - just telling me you want to expand governmental intrusion inot industry is not sufficient.
I am prepared to listen but I will not, however, simplyy bow to the wisdom of Al Gore - even if he did invent the internet.
Now that's fair isn't it?
Posted by James Jones on October 25, 2007 01:32 PMSo the moral of your little rant Jimmy...is that 1) you believe the myth that a scientific consesus is meaningless 2) that global warmings adverse effects haven't been established and 3) that since kyoto wasn't ratified, any attempt at curbing our impact is worthless and/or the science behind the reason for such curbs isn't compelling enough.
Well done...you just hit a hat trick.
John...I asked you for sources that led you to believe that curbing our impact would 1) increase the unemployment rate and 2) would decrease food production.
Any questions?
Posted by jay on October 25, 2007 02:11 PMAl Gore probably thinks the Global Warming is real and we are adding to or causing it. So what folks?
The only thing that matters, is the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere now, as compared to the past.
We can study the gasses by finding air bubbles in all sorts of things, but we can`t tell what the temperature was, we can only deduce that from the plants that grew at the time. An example is the hardwood trees on eastern Antarctica.
These GW threads always, always, go sideways into religion and insults.
I am a practical person, I think it is way past time when we could have any effect on the outcome of GW. The damage has been done, however it occurred.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 25, 2007 02:27 PMjay,
Here's the reality
My statement
All of this is based on your false premise that a consensus in science is compelling. That has never been the case.
Cannot mean
1) you believe the myth that a scientific consesus is meaningless
That's hyperbole.
My statement
It is obvious that man's activities impact climate but that evades two important questions. First, is the impact significant? Second, is it adverse?
Does mean,
2) that global warmings adverse effects haven't been established
Which of course is true.
My statement
The science in this case is not sufficiently compelling to undertake the sort of dramatic programs envisioned by, for instance, Kyoto.
Cannot mean
3) that since kyoto wasn't ratified, any attempt at curbing our impact is worthless and/or the science behind the reason for such curbs isn't compelling enough.
Here again your response is hyperbolic.
Final score - Hyperbolic two times out of three means my example of your post was indeed a Straw Man.
That was the point remember - or did you lose track along the way?
"All of this is based on your false premise that a consensus in science is compelling"
Yes James, that means you believe that the scientific consensus is meaningless.
Denying it or trying to spin it away isn't going to get you out of that.
Nice try though.
"Does mean,
2) that global warmings adverse effects haven't been established
Which of course is true"
No James...that's still a myth.
Again...no spin is going to get you out of that one either.
"The science in this case is not sufficiently compelling to X"
Again James...these strawman arguments won't play here...but you do get points for consistency.
The science is "compelling"...and again...no one is talking about a program that would drop the sky on our heads (which no...even kyoto wasn't).
Again James....you can't spin away your Denier status on GW.
We've established your Denier status on Evolution and GW...can I ask....how you do you feel about the promise represented by embryonic stem cell research?
Posted by jay on October 25, 2007 07:52 PMjay,
On your first point, positions must be compelling or meaningless. There is no middle ground
On the second point, there is what you think is true and there is myth. Again no middle ground.
On the third point, well just ignore the third point if you can't think of anything.
John II is correct. Integrity and you are strangers.
Posted by James Jones on October 25, 2007 11:19 PM