Conquer Club

Just curious, do you guys agree with Al Gore's science?



So where did Al Gore go wrong?

Player


You trust your other than president officials to do what? To not stop the billion two of taxpayer funded research into thorium energy and four decades on not have it sold to the Chinese? To legalize medical marijuana in California so that the Feds could have ready made raid targets?

They didn't do the research, they didn't understand the issues... You are making a lot of inexcusable excuses for some people who have profited at your and your neighbors and families costs. And paving the way for their future profits. With the number of people in prison for marijuana alone, you would imagine in the home of the free some bells would start going off. That is your world, where politicians a. Can actually do something B. Actually care.

But you state, they didn't read the research. Wtf. They knew perfectly well what they were doing. You seem to think that corporations buy up politicians and then havoc is accidentally reeked to which their products and services miraculously solve.

Take this into consideration. Halliburton has a business plan that consists of servicing existing and future conflict. We then have . So ten days after 9/11 they had their business plan for the next decade or two. Why we would be attacking all these countries is anyone's guess, but it amazingly all came about. Well done Halliburton, you go getter you. I'm not suggesting Halliburton had a hand in it, but they sure had the right contender in office when it hit. Not that climate boy would have left them any worse off.

Financial crisis, good thing we have the right boy in office say the banks. Health insurers, good thing we have the right boy in office. But both boys are the right boys. And then the marketing campaign, a good old crisis media circus and the same guys who put the guys in office and maintain the media circus are the same ones benefiting.

But most of this you acknowledge and agree with. It's some logical hole, perhaps blind repetitive recitation of the pledge of allegiance as a child that has left you unable to put two and two together. Why on earth you would propose placing the environment in the hands of the corporations and government which has destroyed it in the first place is far beyond me. Especially when they have destroyed it just for this purpose.

Player, it is sad that they can confuse good-hearted (and vocal) people like you into being their word of mouth advertisers and the fact that you don't get it is your ignorance.

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, do you guys agree with Al Gore's science?



So where did Al Gore go wrong?

He's not a scientist? Sounds like the same reason you go wrong.

.....yet his movie is shown in science classes all across America.
.....which means school boards have approved the science he is promoting, which turned out to be wildly incorrect.
.....which means the PHD's he hired were using flawed science
.....probably because their science is politically motivated

It probably got skimmed and I can't blame anyone for that. I posted a link to a story about "scientists" getting trapped in the Ice of both hemispheres, because it has come earlier and been thicker this year than it has for a very long time.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: Personally, I think the sun cycles have more to do with our climate than anything

Based on what? Your extensive reading of Anthony Watts' blog?

If you are prepared to go on about how the earth is not impacted by the sun, I'm all ears. But I'm pretty sure I don't need to post a link for anyone 'proving' that the sun impacts the climate on earth.

You implied that solar cycles are more important for our climate than anthropogenic greenhouse gases. What is your source for that, and precisely what solar cycles are you referring to?

Except I already know it doesn't matter to you what I post in response. Wouldn't I just be wasting my time? I'm not asking for all your links, because I already know what they say. Don't you already know the argument for solar cycles? Then why ask for them as if this is the first time you heard of it? You are only hoping I post something that you can take apart, regardless of what's in it. Like that church thing

Or, to try another tactic I witnessed in the gun thread "this thread isn't about the chemical makeup of stars, so it should be moved"

I wouldnt say he was hoping youd post something that could be torn apart...I think it was more of an implied certainty...you know, like where you say the earth is not experiencing global warming based on the fact that it is referred to as climate change....and somewhat ironically...so that ingorants like yourself, arent confused when they see snow and assume that means the entire globe is colder....again....just go on tv... I hate having to read this for my laughs. I truly want to sit down with the popcorn.

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, do you guys agree with Al Gore's science?



So where did Al Gore go wrong?

OK, since you claimed that you'd never post a graphic without a source -- where is any documentation backing this up? Al Gore never said such a thing in 1999. It should be telling that deniers have to resort to outright lies to win the discussion -- if the science is as wrong as they say, they should be able to demonstrate this without fabricating claims.

Phatscotty wrote:.....yet his movie is shown in science classes all across America.
.....which means school boards have approved the science he is promoting, which turned out to be wildly incorrect.
.....which means the PHD's he hired were using flawed science
.....probably because their science is politically motivated

We all had dated, and even flawed, PBS and Nat Geo programs in our science class growing up. You just don't like this because of politics.

I'm assuming you're even correct about the science being wrong, because I don't care about your silly pictures.

2dimes wrote:It probably got skimmed and I can't blame anyone for that. I posted a link to a story about "scientists" getting trapped in the Ice of both hemispheres, because it has come earlier and been thicker this year than it has for a very long time.

Winters have been very harsh this year (except here in FL, ). I'll hunt down your link later.

Neoteny wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:.....yet his movie is shown in science classes all across America.
.....which means school boards have approved the science he is promoting, which turned out to be wildly incorrect.
.....which means the PHD's he hired were using flawed science
.....probably because their science is politically motivated

We all had dated, and even flawed, PBS and Nat Geo programs in our science class growing up. You just don't like this because of politics.

I'm assuming you're even correct about the science being wrong, because I don't care about your silly pictures.

2dimes wrote:It probably got skimmed and I can't blame anyone for that. I posted a link to a story about "scientists" getting trapped in the Ice of both hemispheres, because it has come earlier and been thicker this year than it has for a very long time.

Winters have been very harsh this year (except here in FL, ). I'll hunt down your link later.

No. I'm just saying back the hell off fundamentally transforming our country and our economy with the implied 'next to 100% certain" of the science considering climate change.

But maybe you aren't aware of the public discourse surrounding the essence of this issue, and that is banning anything that disagrees with the climate control narrative. Have you heard about this? I think it was Reddit that bans any opposing views or perspectives or even common on differing science results, and I have already shown a few times in other place where University professors basically bully students who have opposing views, calling them 'crazy' and 'lunatics' and publicly ridiculing them, even accusing them of having blood on their hands.

Are you aware of the bullying and manipulation and straight banning of any opposing views?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, do you guys agree with Al Gore's science?



So where did Al Gore go wrong?

OK, since you claimed that you'd never post a graphic without a source -- where is any documentation backing this up? Al Gore never said such a thing in 1999. It should be telling that deniers have to resort to outright lies to win the discussion -- if the science is as wrong as they say, they should be able to demonstrate this without fabricating claims.

Ruh roh.

Phatscotty wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:.....yet his movie is shown in science classes all across America.
.....which means school boards have approved the science he is promoting, which turned out to be wildly incorrect.
.....which means the PHD's he hired were using flawed science
.....probably because their science is politically motivated

We all had dated, and even flawed, PBS and Nat Geo programs in our science class growing up. You just don't like this because of politics.

I'm assuming you're even correct about the science being wrong, because I don't care about your silly pictures.

2dimes wrote:It probably got skimmed and I can't blame anyone for that. I posted a link to a story about "scientists" getting trapped in the Ice of both hemispheres, because it has come earlier and been thicker this year than it has for a very long time.

Winters have been very harsh this year (except here in FL, ). I'll hunt down your link later.

No. I'm just saying back the hell off fundamentally transforming our country and our economy with the implied 'next to 100% certain" of the science considering climate change.

But maybe you aren't aware of the public discourse surrounding the essence of this issue, and that is banning anything that disagrees with the climate control narrative. Have you heard about this? I think it was Reddit that bans any opposing views or perspectives or even common on differing science results, and I have already shown a few times in other place where University professors basically bully students who have opposing views, calling them 'crazy' and 'lunatics' and publicly ridiculing them, even accusing them of having blood on their hands.

Are you aware of the bullying and manipulation and straight banning of any opposing views?

No more than the ordinary bullying and manipulation and banning associated with privately owned websites. Forgive me for not giving a shit about reddit's comment policies. If the university issue is true, then that is disheartening, but I'm as certain as I am about climate change that it is not as widespread and endemic as you have/will make it out to be. Most science classrooms are pretty quiet places, and most professors are concerned enough about their jobs to want to keep politics to a minimum in any course that is not explicitly about politics.

EDIT: Plus it also takes away from actually teaching what the class is about, which is science, and not what Anthony Watt blogged about this week.

Why do people repost Scotty's troll pics in their replies as if they were cartoons containing valid points?

It's pretty much just habit.

Neoteny wrote:
Winters have been very harsh this year (except here in FL, ). I'll hunt down your link later.

Here's the Antarctica guys.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cuers.html

Was around Christmas which is the start of summer time there.

Thats great news tbh. Not sure a single data point is particularly relevant to the debate though.

2dimes wrote:

Neoteny wrote:
Winters have been very harsh this year (except here in FL, ). I'll hunt down your link later.

Here's the Antarctica guys.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cuers.html

Was around Christmas which is the start of summer time there.

Huh. I hadn't even heard of this. I did some searching around to get a bit more, er, balanced perspective. Some fun facts.

The French are unhappy. What else is new? You can also see the theme of climate researchers distancing themselves from this, calling it "tourism" and "pseudo-scientific," and also damaging to ongoing projects that directly affect the well-being of researchers living on the continent now.

Turney pleads his case.

I was mostly trying to assess this claim from your link, that the ship was stuck directly because "the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year," which, though true, seems strange as a cause since I doubt these guys were oblivious to the fact that sea ice has been kind of a big deal in Antarctica this year. Sadly, I didn't find much; I alluded to the fact that most of the academic discussion revolves around the long-term disruption of ongoing projects to rescue these cats. The closest I found to anything contradictory was from this grumpy Cambridge fellow who states: “The team were in an area where it is common for ice to suddenly build up, and instead of using an icebreaker, they used an ice-strengthened ship, which is totally unsuitable.” If this is true, it's kind of a big deal as well, and sends, in my mind, the people who are hyping this event (the denialists) back into the "lying liars" camp, which certainly plays toward my experience. I don't really know much about boating in Antarctica though, so I'm willing to concede to someone else's expertise, though not necessarily random Daily Mail authors.

I would not say I'm super keen on that daily mail site, though they do seem quite interested in boobs, so they can't be all bad.

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, do you guys agree with Al Gore's science?
So where did Al Gore go wrong?

Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist...period.

2dimes wrote:I would not say I'm super keen on that daily mail site, though they do seem quite interested in boobs, so they can't be all bad.

Boobs and Antarctica probably don't mix, but I could probably scrape up the funds to give it a shot. The scientist in me is curious.

Player, it is sad that they can confuse good-hearted (and vocal) people like you into being their word of mouth advertisers and the fact that you don't get it is your ignorance.

LOL

Apparently you completely missed the fact that I was talking about my own research/projects, not something I happened to Google.

Also, there are a LOT of levels to US government. In a lot of ways, the President is more of a showpiece than a true worker of policies. He has power, no doubt, but his power is dependent upon many layers underneath him. A LOT of the real work of solving various issues falls lower down.

For example, my local city council has a lot more to do with drainage issues in my town than either state or federal officials. They are also the ones going to decide if food trees can be allowed in cities, if urban gardens and small scale meat producers can be authorized. Those things will go a lot further to make cities sustainable than anything a president can say.

Neoteny wrote:

2dimes wrote:It probably got skimmed and I can't blame anyone for that. I posted a link to a story about "scientists" getting trapped in the Ice of both hemispheres, because it has come earlier and been thicker this year than it has for a very long time.

Winters have been very harsh this year (except here in FL, ). I'll hunt down your link later.

I may have spoken too soon. We got hit today. Almost freezing.

2dimes wrote:I would not say I'm super keen on that daily mail site, though they do seem quite interested in boobs, so they can't be all bad.

I dislike Daily Mail. They have an article indicating that the "bikini bridge" is the successor to the "thigh gap" (which I simply refer to as "the gap"). Piss poor writing! Nothing beats the gap.

EDIT

What in the f*ck?!?!?!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... media.html

I just read the article. They aren't even referring to the gap.* They are referring to the thigh gap, which is actually a completely different thing.

* What I'm referring to as the gap is the space right underneath a woman's crotch, before the thighs. If there is a gap there and then the thighs meet later, it is pleasantly wondrous.

Protruding hip bones, Ooo la la.

thegreekdog wrote:

2dimes wrote:I would not say I'm super keen on that daily mail site, though they do seem quite interested in boobs, so they can't be all bad.

I dislike Daily Mail. They have an article indicating that the "bikini bridge" is the successor to the "thigh gap" (which I simply refer to as "the gap"). Piss poor writing! Nothing beats the gap.

EDIT

What in the f*ck?!?!?!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... media.html

I just read the article. They aren't even referring to the gap.* They are referring to the thigh gap, which is actually a completely different thing.

* What I'm referring to as the gap is the space right underneath a woman's crotch, before the thighs. If there is a gap there and then the thighs meet later, it is pleasantly wondrous.

We call it the gap too.