|
Post by blondie on Mar 11, 2007 20:11:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 11, 2007 20:15:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 12, 2007 16:33:29 GMT -5
What is it with these global warming 'deniers'?
Don't they know the debate is over? Why, 'Pope Algore I' said so!
The author of this piece is Philip Stott, a professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London (England).
Note: it is very instructive that Professor Stott does, in fact, believe that global warming exists. His 'apostasy' against the 'religion' of global warming is that he is utterly unconvinced that climate change is anthropogenic, this despite the Left's assertions to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 12, 2007 16:37:02 GMT -5
The above link is to Professor Emeritus Philip Stott's blog, which has as it's stated (and very admirable!) goal:
It's good to see that the debate- and there is a debate, make no mistake- is alive and well in the United Kingdom.
But then they don't have "Pope Algore I' of the "Most Holy Church Of Anthropogenic Global Warming' and his constant hysterical 'sermons' from the 'pulpit' with which to deal.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 12, 2007 16:39:50 GMT -5
I wonder which one more people will watch. But then Jerry Springer has alot of viewers too. Don't mistake truth for popularity.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 12, 2007 23:28:13 GMT -5
When even the New York Times is becoming rather skeptical of "Pope Algore I's' 'sermons' on the 'Gospel of Global Warming', you KNOW that Gore's gone off the deep end: www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=sloginFrom a Rapt Audience, A Call To Cool The HypeExcerpts: So does criticism equal "pick[ing]'? And why should anyone refrain from picking on someone whose work has "a lot of inaccuracies"? He's just a climatologist...what does he know? So the bar is lowered as regards truth when a politician speaks? Tell that to Scooter Libby... Lessee...23 inches versus 20 feet. Which is closer to the truth? Which makes a bigger emotional impact when seen depicted on the screen (even if you have to exaggerate to make the point)? Don't confuse 'Pope Algore I' with facts; the man is on a roll! Another pesky scientist weighs in on the negative side! At this rate, 'Pope Algore I' is going to be presiding over an empty 'church'.....
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 12, 2007 23:32:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Mar 13, 2007 1:11:52 GMT -5
Philip Stott is also famous as a "Pants on Fire" award winner... www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=21&page=1&op=1 A little background into Stotts support of GM foods, his funding coming from the tobacco industry (Philip Morris), his attacks on organic farming among others... A good idea of his deserved "pants on fire" commentary... "Here, for example, is Stott on the human genome project: "Today, we shall truly ''eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'' (Genesis 1.17), for two teams of scientists... have come together to announce the decoding of the alphabet of human life. And ''we shall be as gods"." "By way of comparison, consider Craig Venter's candid admission that "We don't know shit about biology" (quoted in "Decoding the genome", Ralph Brave, Jan. 9, 2001). Venter is the corporate head of one of the teams of genome decoders that Stott refers to." So Stott has been a "God" for quite some time (albeit one with his pants on fire...) before he jumped on the global warming money train... LOL
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 13, 2007 8:14:23 GMT -5
We should all just wait another 6 months on this. That's my guess as to how much life is left in the GW deniers movement.
My prediction is that they'll keep changing their position until it becomes something entirely different. Then claim they were right all along.
Already I can see them sneaking over to the "scientists aren't 100% sure humans are causing 100% of the global warming."
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 13, 2007 8:29:33 GMT -5
clearly blondie didnt watch the film...or they wouldnt continue to show their utter IGNORANCE about even the most basic science, and a total lack of anything close to common sense.
indeed blondie the debate is over, your side has been shown by science to be a total FRAUD!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 13, 2007 9:45:55 GMT -5
clearly blondie didnt watch the film...or they wouldnt continue to show their utter IGNORANCE about even the most basic science, and a total lack of anything close to common sense. indeed blondie the debate is over, your side has been shown by science to be a total FRAUD! Are you referring to that film that's been totally discredited? The one where the guy got all upset because they took his quotes about of context and rearranged them so they said the exact opposite of what he meant? The film by the guy whose last mockumentory about the environment promoted a prime-time apology by the network? Is that the film you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 13, 2007 16:26:34 GMT -5
the film with the actual science yes, that film and as usual you address not ONE point of the science but instead attack the messenger.
how come the actual data from the last 8 years does NOT match the computer models?
how come the actual data shows the hypothesis to be FALSE, yet you cling to it?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 13, 2007 16:57:55 GMT -5
Ah, you must mean "An Inconvenient Truth".
While I appreciate the kudos for the work I and others are doing to restore a bit of sanity to the debate- and yes there is a debate, much as you'd like to think otehrwise- we can't say that "Pope Algore I's' crockumentary has been "totally discredited"- yet.
We're at, oh, about 96% so far.
We'll never make 100% because he did at least spell his own name right.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 13, 2007 20:05:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 13, 2007 20:53:22 GMT -5
I referenced that very same article several posts before you did.
It makes me wonder just a tiny bit if you ever bother to read the posts refuting yours- and there are plenty.
But no matter.
The point that the NY Times article was making is a very, very good one:
At what point does the champion of a cause you believe in become a millstone around your neck when they begin to spout lies, half-lies, misrepresentations, baseless conjecture and the like?
"Pope Algore I' cites only the worst possible results in his crockumentary while not bothering to cite evidence from the same study that paints a potentially much less catastrophic result, even if many does >nothing< to stop global warming (assuming he can).
UN climatology reports say that, yes, a sea level increase of 6 meters- approximately 20 feet- is possible. Gore trumpets that possible outcome by showing graphs and charts depicting New York and much of Florida under water. Heck, Sports Illustrated cites the same thing in their latest issue.
But the same UN climatology reports also report that a sea level increase of some five to ten INCHES is also possible. Gore doesn't mention that possibility, even though it is contained in the same report, obviously because showing a five-inch-high tsunami 'engulfing' New York City isn't as visually impressive.
What our domestic MSM is doing- finally!- is to report what objective thinkers have known all along:
1) that climate change, though real, may or may not be caused by human activity
2) that climate change might- or might not be- a purely- or largely- natural phenomenon
3) that the results of climate change are, for the present, largely inestimable because we just don't have enough data
4) that there might or might not be anything we humans can do to stop climate change and/or reverse it's impact
5) that the effects of climate change are global and the duty for we humans to do whatever we can do to slow/stop the progress- if there is anything we can do (or should do for that matter)- is a cost to be borne by ALL humans (and that means India and China too!)
'Pope Algore I' could do his cause a great service if he'd only rein in the hysterical rhetoric and admit that, wise as he obviously is, there are quite a few things that he- and we- don't know about global climate change.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 13, 2007 21:33:49 GMT -5
I referenced that very same article several posts before you did. It makes me wonder just a tiny bit if you ever bother to read the posts refuting yours- and there are plenty. But no matter. The point that the NY Times article was making is a very, very good one: At what point does the champion of a cause you believe in become a millstone around your neck when they begin to spout lies, half-lies, misrepresentations, baseless conjecture and the like? "Pope Algore I' cites only the worst possible results in his crockumentary while not bothering to cite evidence from the same study that paints a potentially much less catastrophic result, even if many does >nothing< to stop global warming (assuming he can). UN climatology reports say that, yes, a sea level increase of 6 meters- approximately 20 feet- is possible. Gore trumpets that possible outcome by showing graphs and charts depicting New York and much of Florida under water. Heck, Sports Illustrated cites the same thing in their latest issue. But the same UN climatology reports also report that a sea level increase of some five to ten INCHES is also possible. Gore doesn't mention that possibility, even though it is contained in the same report, obviously because showing a five-inch-high tsunami 'engulfing' New York City isn't as visually impressive. What our domestic MSM is doing- finally!- is to report what objective thinkers have known all along: 1) that climate change, though real, may or may not be caused by human activity 2) that climate change might- or might not be- a purely- or largely- natural phenomenon 3) that the results of climate change are, for the present, largely inestimable because we just don't have enough data 4) that there might or might not be anything we humans can do to stop climate change and/or reverse it's impact 5) that the effects of climate change are global and the duty for we humans to do whatever we can do to slow/stop the progress- if there is anything we can do (or should do for that matter)- is a cost to be borne by ALL humans (and that means India and China too!) 'Pope Algore I' could do his cause a great service if he'd only rein in the hysterical rhetoric and admit that, wise as he obviously is, there are quite a few things that he- and we- don't know about global climate change. I, not being a straw man, have never claimed Al Gore (or Algore, as Rush Limbaugh likes to say) is the source of all wisdom. I do say the media likes to beat up on him. I'm with the EPA. If they change there stance on global warming so will I. Don't hold your breath. Some, on this board have, however, foolishly thrown all their chips in with a television show recently aired in Briton. Please feel free to check google news daily for the next week or so as said "documentary" is thoroughly filleted. That's one sign of good science. It can be used to make predictions.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 13, 2007 21:49:26 GMT -5
1) that climate change, though real, may or may not be caused by human activity 2) that climate change might- or might not be- a purely- or largely- natural phenomenon 3) that the results of climate change are, for the present, largely inestimable because we just don't have enough data 4) that there might or might not be anything we humans can do to stop climate change and/or reverse it's impact 5) that the effects of climate change are global and the duty for we humans to do whatever we can do to slow/stop the progress- if there is anything we can do (or should do for that matter)- is a cost to be borne by ALL humans (and that means India and China too!) Hey speaking of predictions. Look what I wrote just above "My prediction is that they'll keep changing their position until it becomes something entirely different. Then claim they were right all along."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 14, 2007 8:17:45 GMT -5
Here's a pretty thorough one: www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1174/81/Billt, Are you a young earth creationist? W.O.M.I. seems to just hate democrats, but I don't understand your motives. Like the creationists you're very quick to dismiss credible sources and are very gullible when it comes to pseudo-science.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 10:35:42 GMT -5
no blondie, i use the SCIENCE i had already learned by 8th grade to reject the LIE of human caused GW....i have been the same from the beginning, i didnt need anyone else's opinion blondie becaue I KNOW the science involved.
unlike YOU blondie NOTHING form you has made any sense, you insult at every chance and i admit you usually dont use names directly but instead use the chickensh*T method of hiding your insults.'
blondie you are a JOKE and unworthy ofd the knowledge i share with this board, remain blissful in your world of ignorance.
insult away chickensh*t person the gloves are off, i warned you and rich when i came back that i would expose you on an intellectual level for all to see, DONE THAT and you blondie are too stupid to understand what has happened!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 14, 2007 11:19:50 GMT -5
no blondie, i use the SCIENCE i had already learned by 8th grade to reject the LIE of human caused GW....i have been the same from the beginning, i didnt need anyone else's opinion blondie becaue I KNOW the science involved. unlike YOU blondie NOTHING form you has made any sense, you insult at every chance and i admit you usually dont use names directly but instead use the chickensh*T method of hiding your insults.' blondie you are a JOKE and unworthy ofd the knowledge i share with this board, remain blissful in your world of ignorance. insult away chickensh*t person the gloves are off, i warned you and rich when i came back that i would expose you on an intellectual level for all to see, DONE THAT and you blondie are too stupid to understand what has happened! That's funny, because I only remember you only making one point which is shot down here: "CO2 doesn't match the temperature record over the 20th C. True but not relevant, because it isn't supposed to. The programme spent a long time agonising over what they presented as a sharp temperature fall for 4 decades from 1940 to 1980 (incidentally their graph looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected; on a more usual (and sourced!) plot the "4 decades of cooling" is rather less evident). They presented this as a major flaw in the theory, which is deeply deceptive, because as they and their interviewees must know, the 40-70 cooling type period is readily explained, in that the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by sulphate aerosols. See this for a wiki-pic, for example; or (all together now) the IPCC TAR SPM fig 4; or more up-to-date AR4 fig 4. So... they are lying to us by omission." www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindledSo you're not a young earth creationist? Please, yes or no.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 11:32:04 GMT -5
LOL...hilarious stuff, WRONG but thank you for showing indeed your ignorance, ONLY an ignorant person will present such nonsense to support their lunacy.
are you are murderous pedophile? please yes or no?
i ask because there is the SAME amount of evidence backing my question as there is for the one you posed to me!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 14, 2007 11:35:42 GMT -5
So are you a young earth creationist? Please, yes or no.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 14, 2007 13:43:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Mar 14, 2007 13:56:00 GMT -5
I'z a regula' sooth saya' Perfect timing with tomorrow being the Ides of March.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 14:55:00 GMT -5
moonbat is a politcal hack that has been involved in expanding the world government for years.
susnspot activity indeed has lessened in the last few years AND the measurements of the lower atmosphere from both space and weather balloons have shown a slight COOLING as a result!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 14, 2007 15:22:05 GMT -5
Looks to me like George Monbiot is just the latest guy to totally trash that documentary you love so much. He was also selected as one of the top 2005 Global Intellectuals in 2005. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_2005_Global_Intellectuals_PollYou're willing to believe a documentary made by a guy whose last work on the environment demanded a prime time apology by the network. With proven deceptive charts and one guy going public that his words were taken out of context to say the exact opposite of what he actually meant. If your so big on science you must know about falsifiability. I know you're getting your global warming information from a pamphlet you found at the Baptist Book store next to Evolution the Fossils Say No. Come on admit it. You're a young Earth creationist. Just answer yes or no.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 15:28:37 GMT -5
8th grade science is all it takes too bad blondie you lack a grade school education....so far you havent actually taken part in the debate all you have done is say "i heard it on TV so that makes it right."
indeed the recent cooling ALONE is all the science it takes to PROVE that human caused GW is total BS!
the ice core data shows the temperature goes UP then sometime later the co2 levels go up, that is FACT and that FACT also proves HCGW to be total BS!
the cause can NEVER come before the effect in science!
also the claims that co2 is a "pollutant" are so utterly FALSE that those making the claim are proven to be agenda driven and have NO CONCERN whatsoever for truth and accuracy.
i dont answer the question because it is too stupid to merit a response....of course what do i expect from a stupid person?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 14, 2007 15:33:01 GMT -5
You are! You are a creationist.
I knew it. I recognize the debate technique.
You guys should realize it doesn't work on the Internet where it's so easy to fact check.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 15:42:26 GMT -5
is this the twilight zone? candid camera?
a person that has shown no use for science, has shown to take human caused GW based on FAITH, and has yet to even take part in the debate is accusing me of basing my poitision on religion???
beam me up scotty, no intelligent life here!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 14, 2007 16:15:00 GMT -5
is this the twilight zone? candid camera? a person that has shown no use for science, has shown to take human caused GW based on FAITH, and has yet to even take part in the debate is accusing me of basing my poitision on religion??? beam me up scotty, no intelligent life here! The reason I asked about the creationism was because I gave up arguing with people about evolution a long time ago. People who don't believe in evolution either don't know anything about it or are basing it all on their faith, which is fine. Obviously if you believe in God he can do anything and I'm not interested in arguing with people about evolution if they don't know anything about it. I didn't know enough about the global warming debate to recognize someone who used scientific jargon, but didn't know what they were talking about. I'm sure there are some working scientists who have real doubts about man-made global warming. They probably have some interesting things to say. I'll have to do my own research. You don't seem to be able to tell a reputable scientist from a quack.
|
|